Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BATH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LOCH TURRET WATER BOARD (HYDRO- ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

PETITION

New Primary School, Godstone

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to present a Petition from the inhabitants of the village of Godstone in Surrey, in which they deplore the fact that the Minister of Education has not yet given his consent for the Surrey County Council to build a new primary school in their village.
I should explain that those who examine this Petition may note the paucity of signatures. This should not be interpreted as a lack of support by the people of the village but rather it should be attributed to the fact that the procedures laid down by this honourable

House are somewhat antiquated and baffling to the average citizen. In point of fact, virtually the whole population of the village, numbering 1,000, have given their wholehearted support in writing to the substance of this Petition.
The Petition ends:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray and earnestly request that Her Majesty's Minister of Education grant his consent to the proposal by the Surrey County Council to erect the new county primary school for the village by reason of the facts that

1. The existing building is out of date and inadequate by modern standards.
2. The growth of the village has left the existing school isolated from the centre of population.
3. The new building would, when occupied, relieve pressure on the primary schools in neighbouring villages.
4. The site for the new school is already owned by the local education authority.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

Latin America

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how the technical assistance programme for Latin America is developing; what has been done to implement the recommendations of the Committee on training in Public Administration for Overseas Countries; and how far it has been found possible to utilise in Latin America the services of members of Her Majesty's overseas services who have been retired prematurely after long and successful service overseas.

The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Robert Carr): By December I expect that British experts will be working in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay. In addition, there will be a number of trainees in this country from South and Central America some of whom will I hope have come here under a scheme of training in which the Organisation of American States will be working with us.
The number of experts supplied by my Department to Latin American countries


is still small. Of the nine so far appointed or selected for appointment seven were members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.
As regards the second part of the Question I would ask my hon. Friend to await my reply to Question No. 3.

Mr. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything they can—short of joining it and short of financial aid—to further the aims of the Alliance for Progress? Does not he feel that the United States can fairly look to this country to help to share the burden of trying to make and keep democratic what Persident Kennedy has called
the most crucial area in the world today"?

Mr. Carr: I think that the fact that we are now starting a significant programme in Latin America is the best answer that I can give to my hon. Friend about my understanding of what he has said.

Committee on Training in Public Administration for Overseas Countries

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he will now make a statement about the action which Her Majesty's Government intend to take on the recommendations of the Committee on Training in Public Administration for Overseas Countries.

Mr. R. Carr: Yes, Sir. The Government are able to accept all the Committee's recommendations in principle, and a White Paper is being published today stating its views in some detail.
We recognise the need, which was stressed by the Committee, for early and vigorous action. My Department is ready to consider sympathetically requests for help which overseas Governments or educational institutions or authorities in Britain may wish to put forward as a result of the published statement.

Mr. Wall: While greatly welcoming that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it means that the institution of advanced training and research recommended in paragraph 88 of the Report will be set up in due course? What is likely to happen about courses

at Torquay on social administration which cater for Commonwealth administrators who have at least 10 years' experience in the field? Will that form of course be continued?

Mr. Carr: I require notice about the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. On the first part, I would draw his attention to the fact that the recommendation that such an institution should be set up was not a firm one but rather that the advisability of such an institution should be examined. We are urgently studying that proposal and we will announce our decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side welcome the adoption of the Report and hope that as many people as possible will volunteer for service?

Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he will extend the services of the Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau to include United Kingdom domiciled officers on local pay who have suffered loss of career because of the grant of self-government and independence to the countries of the old Colonial Empire.

Mr. R. Carr: No, Sir. The Bureau was established to assist the resettlement of officers who were recruited by the Secretary of State, or through the Crown Agents, and for whom Her Majesty's Government thus have a special responsibility. To extend its scope to other categories of people would weaken its ability to help those for whom we have this particular responsibility.

Mr. Turton: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that these men whom he is refusing to help are regarded as expatriate and expendable by the newly independent Governments? Does not he acknowledge the even greater moral obligation to help these men over those in the overseas service who are not domiciled in this country and who are citizens of other countries such as the Republic of South Africa and Germany?

Mr. Carr: This is a difficult question. We want to help all these people. It is a matter of the best way to do it. We feel that we have a special responsibility to those whom we actually recruited,


and if we were to open this Bureau's services to a very much larger number we should, to that extent, weaken our ability to help those for whom we have this special responsibility. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not forget that, for example, in the professional and executive register at the Ministry of Labour there is a very good appointments service available to anybody who wants jobs at this level.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend must accept a higher measure of responsibility to British ex-Service men who have been serving this country overseas than to Germans and South Africans to whom we have no obligation.

Mr. Carr: Yes, but we feel that our special responsibility is to those whom we actually recruit. The vast majority of these are British citizens. The fact that a few people who were recruited in this country happened to be citizens of countries other than Britain does not seem to us to alter the principle.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Overseas Services)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what plans he has for expanding the overseas services of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. R. Carr: The most urgent need is to make the B.B.C. services more easily heard in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and for this purpose the Government have authorised a major programme of new relay transmitters overseas.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the only problem? There is also the problem of the time of broadcasting which could and should be much more. Is he aware that, with the constant increase in the number of receiving sets in many parts of the world, the potential audience is constantly increasing? Why have we allowed the amount of B.B.C. broadcasting relative to other countries to fall so catastrophically since the war?

Mr. Carr: I accept the hon. Member's proposition that the more we can do the better, but we should be wrong to adopt what I would call a crude "league table" approach. There have been some increases this year, as no doubt the hon. Member is aware, but the most urgent

need is to make sure that for the hours which we are transmitting we are adequately heard by the people to whom we are transmitting them, and that is our priority at the moment.

Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply to the earlier question, would he pay particular attention to the urgent need for greatly stepping up broadcasting to Latin America, and would he make a statement?

Mr. Carr: The first need is to ensure that the hours which we broadcast to Latin America have a signal of strength and quality which can be heard, and that is what we are concentrating on.

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a league table. Is he aware that we have been overtaken by the United States, China, the Soviet Union and by the group of satellite countries and will shortly be overtaken by Egypt in the amount of broadcasting? Why will he not look into this matter and put the B.B.C. back on the map as far as the amount of broadcasting goes?

Mr. Carr: We are constantly looking at this, and I am sure that neither this House nor the B.B.C. would agree that it is off the map. It is doing a tremendous job for which we should give it credit, but I repeat that the first priority is to make the quality and strength of our broadcasts better than they are at the moment.

Under-developed Countries (Voluntary Work)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps he intends to take among school leavers and university graduates to bring to their attention the opportunities for voluntary work in under-developed countries.

Mr. R. Carr: The voluntary societies which recruit volunteers for service overseas arrange their own publicity. My Department has assisted them in the past and will be ready to do so in the future. I also hope to speak to students on the subject at various universities.

Mr. Worsley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that we are only beginning to touch the fringe of the problem and that there are enormous opportunities


which have not yet been understood by young people in this country? Will he get in touch with such organisations as employment bureaux and the youth employment service as a matter of practice and work through them?

Mr. Carr: I certainly realise the very great scope for development in this service. We are stepping up the programme of volunteers overseas from about 36 to 500over a period of only three years. A further expansion of the programme, as my hon. Friend knows, has been announced for next year. More expansion still will raise problems of finance and may also lead to some alteration in the existing organisations. But I hope that these problems will be solved and that the programme will continue to expand.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real problem is not so much the shortage of volunteers, of which there is an abundant number, but a lack of finance and facilities to enable young people to go to serve in under-developed countries? Is he aware that this summer the International Voluntary Service, for instance, has had to turn away hundreds of young people from this country who were eager to play their part in under-developed countries?

Mr. Carr: The Government are providing at the moment about 50 per cent. of the finance for graduate volunteers and about one-third of the finance for school leavers. I think that until we have had further discussions a bigger contribution from the Government would be as unwelcome to some of the voluntary societies as it might be to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Overseas Aid (White Paper)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he will make a further statement regarding the publication of a White Paper on overseas aid.

Mr. R. Carr: The White Paper will not now be ready for publication before the recess, but it is hoped that it will be fairly shortly.

Mr. Worsley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the information contained in this White Paper should be readily accessible

to people in this country? If, as I suspect, it is a fairly lengthy document, would he consider producing a popular version?

Mr. Carr: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point. The White Paper will be a comprehensive review and therefore it will be rather lengthy. I assure him that the possibility of publishing a condensed version is being actively considered, although I cannot yet announce a decision.

Bonn (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation for what purposes he made an official visit to Bonn on 24th to 26th of this month; and what was the scope of his discussions.

Mr. R. Carr: Herr Scheel, the Federal German Minister for Economic Cooperation, invited me to return the visit which he made to my predecessor last February. He and representatives of private and semi-official organisations fully reviewed the substantial West German development aid effort, as I did the British effort. I am grateful to Herr Scheel.
As co-ordinator of Overseas Information Services I was also glad to visit the Information Office in Bonn and the British Council in Cologne.

Mr. Loveys: Did this visit have any other special significance than being simply part of the normal process of consultation with other countries providing overseas aid?

Mr. Carr: No, there was no special significance in it. We try, of course, to achieve international co-ordination through such bodies as the Development Assistance Committee of the O.E.C.D., in Paris, but it is extremely important to keep close bilateral contacts with all the donor countries individually. That is what I was doing on this occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

Development Contracts

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what machinery exists in his Department, other than that of the Atomic Energy Authority, for


selecting projects for development contracts and for selecting firms capable of carrying them out.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): Projects for development contracts are selected by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research from proposals submitted by individual firms. Those selected are carried out by the firms concerned. The Council makes its choice on the basis of expert industrial, technical and economic advice obtained from the best available sources.

Mr. Albu: Would I be right in assuming from that Answer that there is absolutely no machinery within the noble Lord's Department for doing this job and that the function of the D.S.I.R. is an entirely passive one in waiting for projects to be put up to it, asking people outside the Department to comment on them and finally, over a period of two or three years, managing to place two or three development contracts?

Mr. Freeth: This does not mean to say that the help is not available, nor would it be wise purely to have machinery which was confined to D.S.I.R., which, naturally, takes advice from those best qualified to give it, whether in industry or in Government.

Mr. Crossman: In view of the Minister's negative reply, would he like to comment on the suggestion made in Civil Research Policy by the F.B.I, that his noble Friend's Ministry bears responsibility for determining the allocation of State aid and strategy. This recommendation was made by the F.B.I. Does the hon. Gentleman repudiate it? If not, what reorganisation of the Ministry will he undertake to do the job?

Mr. Freeth: That is rather like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife. I tried to explain the situation in the debate on 15th July.

Mr. Crossman: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has explained is that he was not doing anything about it? We are asking him once again whether he is telling us that the Ministry, with its present strength of manpower, is continuing to pretend to do a job which it cannot conceivably do without further manpower, as recommended by the F.B.I.

Mr. Freeth: The essential point about development contracts, which are the subject of the Question, is that they should be proposals from the firms concerned, in which those firms have faith, but that where they need Government aid, the D.S.I.R. has ample machinery to deal with these applications.

Grant-Aided Research Associations (Rates)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many grant-aided research associations have so far been able to obtain a rating reduction under Section 11(4,b) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961; and, in view of the need to give positive encouragement to research, what advice is being given to rating authorities with regard to this matter.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The information is not available since this is a matter for negotiation between the autonomous industrial research associations and the local authorities concerned. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has impressed upon local authorities the importance of giving sympathetic consideration to applications from bodies which are eligible under Section 11(4) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, for a reduction or remission of rates.

Sir B. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is not in a position to decide whether this is being put into effective service? Is it not an extremely important matter that the Government should be aware whether this method of existing research is effective and is extensively used? What will he do about altering the position, which, to judge from his Answer, is useless?

Mr. Freeth: If the research associations consider the situation unsatisfactory, doubtless they will make representations to my noble Friend, who will, naturally, consider them with sympathy.

Building Research Station

Mr. Boyden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in view of the fact that the Building Research Station is facing a spate of problems associated with industrial building, what increases of finance and staff he proposes for the Station during the next two years.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The non-industrial staff of the Building Research Station will increase by about 6 per cent. in 1964–65. The figure for 1965–66 has not yet been decided. The new physics laboratories which I opened earlier this month show the way in which we are providing improved facilities for building research.

Mr. Boyden: While I am glad to know that the Government are moving a little forward, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rôle of the Government in building research must be much greater than it has been? Will he consider whether there is not great need for the Government to widen the field of the Building Research Station to include organisation, management and this field of activity?

Mr. Freeth: The hon. Member will be aware of the new research and development unit which has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and also the proposals which have been made for a building information and research association.

Mr. Crossman: In view of the record of the industry itself, which, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, is one of the worst in the country, paying for research and development out of its own resources at one-tenth of the national rate, would he not agree that the work of the Building Research Station assumes a greater importance? Is he content to know that whereas since 1950 expenditure of D.S.I.R. has gone up by 400 per cent., and of the Agricultural Research Council by, I think, 800 per cent., that of the Building Research Station has gone up by only 25 per cent.? Is this rate of increase in the Government's research and development really satisfactory in view of the deficiencies of the industry's own research and development?

Mr. Freeth: I would not like to confirm or deny the figures which the hon. Gentleman has produced, but the gross expenditure of the Station has risen from £781,000 in 1961–62 to an estimated £970,000 in the next financial year. I fully agree that there is an increasing volume of work on research for the Building Research Station to do, but there are also the additional research and development and information facilities which are being provided by my right hon. Friend.

British Nuclear Forum

Mr. Skeet: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what plans the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has for association with the British Nuclear Forum to be incorporated in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Atomic Energy Authority supports the establishment of a British Nuclear Forum. It takes the view that it should be for the Forum, when established, to consider in the first instance the way in which it would wish the Authority to be associated with it.

Mr. Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that this might be a helpful body for contributing to the provision of useful forecasts on atomic energy in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that in the United States more than 500 firms have been associated with this enterprise?

Mr. Freeth: Yes, indeed. I welcome the establishment of a British Nuclear Forum. At least 15 other countries have such a body and this will, I think, be a useful one to act as the industry's spokesman when dealing with the Government or with the industries of other countries.

Radioactive Isotopes

Mr. Skeet: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give a list of the radio isotopes at present being manufactured in the United Kingdom, and a table of the establishments producing them; and if he will state the total of Government funds currently being spent in the United Kingdom on isotope research.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The processing and sale of radioactive isotopes in the United Kingdom are carried out at the Atomic Energy Authority's Radiochemical Centre at Amersham. About 150 different radio active isotopes are available in some 1,300 different physical and chemical forms. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the Radiochemical Centre's catalogue.
Total annual Government expenditure on isotope research is about £1 million.

Mr. Skeet: Can my hon. Friend indicate comparative figures of expenditure on isotope research by other nuclear countries?

Mr. Freeth: Not without notice, and some countries do not publish these figures.

Research Grants

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science the total number of earmarked research grants so far placed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; and for what projects they have been placed.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: None as yet, but the first will be offered shortly.

Mr. Albu: Am I not right in believing that the policy of earmarked grants was announced 15 months ago and that it is generally considered by many of the directors of research associations to be a valuable way of Government assistance, particularly in cases where the industry is not clearly defined or is particularly backward and does not itself encourage research? Has not the Department been extremely lax in not placing any contracts so far?

Mr. Freeth: No, I do not think so. These projects are all very complex. They require detailed consideration. In many of the applications, they represent a substantial disbursement of the taxpayer's money. Dike the hon. Member, I am, naturally, disappointed that we have not been able to place contracts hitherto, but, as I have said in my Answer, I hope that the first will be offered shortly.

Car Safety Belts

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science when he will publish the results of the further investigation into car safety belts by the Road Research Laboratory, in view of the need for early standardisation to reduce cost of fitting.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: A further report by the Road Research Laboratory should be published in the autumn.

Mr. Digby: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the need to publish these things quickly, because meanwhile the diversification in types of seat belt seems to be continuing and people wonder which is the best type to use?

Mr. Freeth: A number of these studies are, of course, printed in the form of laboratory notes and sent to those who

are on the mailing list of the Road Research Station. I would willingly send my hon. Friend a copy of any of the studies which he would like to have, but the latest study has, I understand, been accepted for publication in a journal and should appear in September or October.

Trend Committee (Terms of Reference)

Dr. Bray: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will revise the terms of reference of the Trend Committee to enable it to consider the need for a scientific research unit to be attached to the Ministry of Power.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will revise the terms of reference of the Trend Committee to enable it to consider the need for a scientific research unit to be attached to the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Wills: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will revise the terms of reference of the Trend Commit tee to enable it to consider the need for a scientific research unit to be attached to the Scottish Office.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will revise the terms of reference of the Trend Committee to enable it to consider the need for a scientific research unit to be attached to the Department of Technical Co-operation.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The terms of reference of this Committee, which will report to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, are wide enough to permit consideration of these issues.

Dr. Bray: I am sure that hon. Members will be very glad to hear that report, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is himself happy that the Ministry of Power has sufficient scientific manpower to enable it to communicate effectively with the highly technical industries with which it has to deal? Is he himself presenting any evidence to the Trend Committee on this matter?

Mr. Freeth: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question should be asked of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. As regards the second part, neither my noble Friend nor


I are presenting evidence to this Committee since we shall naturally have to take part in making decisions on the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr. Swingler: While being glad to hear that the Committee has wide enough terms of reference to consider these ideas, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will ensure bringing them to the Committee's attention so that it does consider specifically proposals for attaching scientific research units to each of these Departments?

Mr. Freeth: I can assure the hon. Member that members of the Committee will read today's HANSRD.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman also see that the Committee considers the position of the Scottish Office in view of the fact that the Elgood Committee commended the setting up of a research and development unit in the Scottish Office?

Mr. Freeth: As I said, the Committee, I am certain, is aware of these particular issues; but if it were not, it will have read today's HANSARD by tomorrow.

Roads (Planning and Building)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary for Science what form of liaison at present exists between the research councils employing geologists and pedologists and the surveyors and engineers responible for planning and building roads.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Road Research Laboratory examines the specifications of all motorway and trunk road schemes costing over £1 million. Monthly liaison meetings are held between the Laboratory and the Ministry of Transport to discuss problems arising from road schemes. When appropriate, visits are paid to schemes in progress. If questions arise on which the advice of geologists and pedologists elsewhere in Government service would be valuable it can readily be obtained.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman really satisfied about this? Has he made a study of the history of motorway construction up to now, the M.6 and the M.1 being cases in point? Is it not clear that there is too great a gulf between the scientific backroom boys and the techni-

cians on the spot? Is there not a need for a better application of scientific brainpower, and will he investigate the whole matter and particularly the importance of ensuring a staff of geologists to be at the disposal of the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Freeth: Any question about the staff of the Ministry of Transport is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Swingler: But would the hon. Gentleman take it up with the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Freeth: My right hon. Friend could not be more keen on co-operating with the D.S.I.R. and other bodies for which my noble Friend is responsible.

Meat Research Institute (Sub-Stations)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science when it will be decided where the sub-stations for the Meat Research Institute are to be sited; and what are the factors to be taken into account.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: There are no present plans to set up sub-stations of the Meat Research Institute. A decision whether to establish substations will depend on the extent to which the work which is to be done at the Institute requires to be supplemented by work under conditions elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when he considers plans for these sub-stations, that we should be very glad indeed to have one in Aberdeenshire?

Mr. Freeth: Indeed, I would pay tribute to my hon. Friend's pertinacity in asking this Question regularly, and I will certainly bear in mind what he has said, but I think it will be some time before the decision in this matter is taken.

D.S.I.R. Awards

Mr. Boyden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in view of the importance of the expansion of universities and colleges of advanced technology and of the need to increase the number of post-graduate students, if he will increase the amount and number of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research awards.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research expects to award up to 2,010 postgraduate studentships this year, an increase of 24 per cent. on the number awarded in 1962. A year ago the values of these awards were increased by an average of 23 per cent.

Mr. Boyden: Has the Parliamentary Secretary's Department studied the relationship between the number of postgraduate students and the demands for university staff, and is he now satisfied that this increase will in future produce enough staff for the universities?

Mr. Freeth: What we want to do is to have enough applications of first-class calibre. We must wait to see in the remainder of 1963 whether or not the number of first-class applications exceeds the number of awards which it is proposed to offer.

Mr. Boyden: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there are not enough good candidates to make awards to, that in fact there is a dearth of applicants? Is this the situation?

Mr. Freeth: No. I merely said that we could not know the position of 1963 till 1963 was over.

Scientific Instrumentation

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he is satisfied with the development and supply of new types of scientific instrumentation in Britain; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in this matter.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Significant increases in both output and exports have been achieved but neither the industry nor I are satisfied with the rate at which new and advanced types of instruments are being developed. The Government stimulate developments in instrumentation through their own considerable purchases and their support of research.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, but what are the N.R.D.C. and D.S.I.R. going to do about it?

Mr. Freeth: It is not for me to answer for N.RD.C. So far as D.S.I.R. is concerned, it makes grants to the Scientific Instrument Research Association, and, of course, it is very willing to receive appli-

cations for development contracts from this industry as from others.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is no liaison with N.R.D.C?

Mr. Freeth: As I have told the House before, there is a regular committee composed of members of D.S.I.R. and N.R.D.C. who meet together regularly to make certain that no applications fall between the sphere of interests of the two bodies.

Space Programme

Sir J. Eden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what changes in the administration of his Department will take place as a result of the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, in order to ensure his continuing co-operation with the Minister of Aviation in the active propagation of a British space programme.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: None, Sir.

Sir J. Eden: In view of the vital interest of British industry playing as full a part as possible in space development, can my hon. Friend assure the House that no matter what may happen to the Minister of Aviation in the new organisation for defence he and his noble Friend will do their best to give positive support to a co-ordinated and purposeful British space programme?

Mr. Freeth: Always subject to my hon. Friend and I meaning the same thing by the words "space programme" I think he and I are in agreement on this

Mr. P. Williams: Will my hon. Friend make a clear and unmistakable assertion that it is the Minister of Aviation who has responsibility for the co-ordination of a British space programme and that this will in fact be an effective programme?

Mr. Freeth: My hon. Friend will have seen the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 13th December last year when he said that
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation has a general responsibility for space technology."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 577.]
My noble Friend has, of course, a general responsibility for co-ordination on the space research front.

Shipping (Vulcain and Integral Boiling Reactor Systems)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made in the evaluation of the respective merits of the Vulcain and integral boiling reactor systems for use in ships.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The respective merits of the two systems will be reviewed in the autumn in the light of progress over the last year. The review will be carried out by the Working Group on Marine Reactor Research, advised by the Technical Advisory Panel.

Mr. Digby: Does that mean that there will be a final decision then? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us are anxious to see the actual laying down of the first British nuclear ship at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Freeth: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend, but the question of the actual laying down of a ship is, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. There will, however, be a decision in the autumn as to whether definitely to build a ship and which reactor to put it in.

Commander Courtney: Could my hon. Friend do better than this? It is already nine months, according to my calculation, since the Atomic Energy Authority recommended two specific types of reactor as suitable. Could my hon. Friend not now, in the meantime, perhaps urge the Minister of Transport to initiate discussions for the building of two ships and not one, in case of any doubts about the respective merits of these two reactors?

Mr. Freeth: A review will take place this autumn, and we shall then be in a position to see whether there are any doubts or not.

Windscale (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what has been the highest power reached by the advanced gas-cooled reactor at Winscale.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: 109 megawatts thermal and 36·5 megawatts electrical.

Mr. Osborn: I welcome this information. May I ask my hon. Friend if he

can state how this compares with the output of an equivalent reactor anywhere else in the world?

Mr. Freeth: The advanced gas-cooled reactor is really unique, but I think it is worth while drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that both these figures are in excess of the original design output.

Dounreay (Experimental Fast Reactor)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what has been the highest power now reached at the experimental fast reactor at Dounreay; and what has been the average electrical output to the national grid per month over the last three months.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The maximum power reached has been 60 megawatts thermal, corresponding to an electrical output of 14·2 megawatts. This is the highest heat level at which a fast breeder reactor has operated anywhere in the world.
The average electrical output of the reactor has been 2¾ million units per month.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Slum Clearance Schemes

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what practical assistance he will make available to areas with heavy house clearance schemes to offset the shortage of professional staff.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): My technical officers are already giving help and advice to local authorities with big slum clearance problems. That is one of the main functions of my new Northern Housing Office in Manchester. I am opening a similar office in Newcastle in the autumn.

Mr. Mapp: Is the Minister aware that Oldham has been obtaining practical architectural advice from as far a field as London, and as this advice is bound to be both costly and remote, would he not now consider having a pool of architectural staff in his Manchester office which could be loaned to authorities with backlogs?

Sir K. Joseph: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituency upon its speed and the efforts which it is successfully making to get the necessary staff by consultation or otherwise. I am sure that it is better for consultants to be employed by the executive authority rather than indirectly by the regulatory authority, which I happen to be.

Housing Subsidies (Review)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in his re view of housing subsidies, he will ensure that a significant weighting is given to those areas where the volume of slum clearance exceeds the average proportion of habitable houses.

Sir K. Joseph: Proper weight will of course be given to the size of a local authority's slum clearance problem, but I cannot commit myself in advance to the basis on which this will be done.

Mr. Mapp: Is the Minister aware of the horrifying prospect facing local authorities with a heavy backlog of slum clearance? In his discussions, which I gather will be taking place in the autumn, will he specifically bear in mind the claims for some priority in financial arrangements for these 50 or so authorities, for otherwise the matter could be lost in the general arguments of the A.M.C.?

Sir K. Joseph: One of the main purposes of the review is to enable the authorities with the largest need and biggest problems to plan ahead with confidence.

Birmingham (Barber Trust Properties)

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made by the City of Birmingham Corporation towards implementing the undertaking given to him to dispose of the Barber Trust properties to a housing association, this being a condition of obtaining loan sanction.

Sir K. Joseph: The formation of the housing association has been delayed because of doubts over the Income Tax position. This is now being considered in conjunction with the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Gurden: Is my right hon. Friend confident that the city council will honour its commitments to the Minister and to the tenants?

Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence that the city council will not try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. I very much hope it will do so.

Tenancies

Dr. Bray: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take steps to ensure that new tenancies for houses, provided by private developers, carry the same rights as previous tenancies which have been compulsorily terminated to permit redevelopment.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir—it would neither be practicable nor desirable to impose on new housing the tenancies of the superseded housing.

Dr. Bray: Has the right hon. Gentleman quite understood the point, that often tenancies are provided for old houses, not new houses—a new tenancy for an old house? It is hard for a tenant to move into another old house but without the security of tenure that he had before. Is it not necessary to make some provision to protect such tenants?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that that is necessary. In fact, if we try to protect such tenants, we shall dry up the availability, such as it is, of new rented accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Ratepayers (Hardship)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, when considering what kind of interim help he will give to ratepayers suffering hardship, he will pay special attention to the needs of seaside ratepayers.

Sir K. Joseph: In so far as seaside—or any other ratepayers—suffer hardship the Government are considering their position.

Mr. Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no doubt that there is


hardship not only in seaside areas but in other areas? He has promised that there will be some interim aid. Can he not quickly say what it will be, or do we have to wait until next year when the Allen Committee reports?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is wrong in saying that I have promised that there will be interim aid. What I have promised is that the Government will be considering urgently whether any interim aid is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Welsh Language (Committee)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has now considered the representations of the Welsh Parliamentary Group concerning the status of the Welsh language; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I am appointing a small committee to inquire into this matter. Sir David Hughes-Parry has consented to be Chairman and I hope to be able to announce shortly the appointment of the two other Members.

Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will give great satisfaction to Welsh Members? Can he tell us what the terms of reference of the Committee will be?

Sir K. Joseph: The terms of reference will be to clarify the legal status of the Welsh language and to consider whether any changes in the law ought to be made.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman particularly on his choice of chairman, which will be widely approved of in Wales, may I ask whether he will consult with the Home Secretary to try to deal quickly with an anomalous position which has arisen out of a recent court decision concerning the validity of nomination forms submitted in Welsh, which may become an urgent problem if we have a General Election soon?

Sir K. Joseph: I know that the Home Secretary has this point well in mind, and I will consult with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (TELEVISION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek the views of the House on the advisability of televising daily a short, edited programme of proceedings of the House of Commons, of a similar nature and at a similar time to the present radio programme.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in all this. It is essentially a matter for the House of Commons and many different views have been expressed. Of course, a television programme like the radio programme would not amount to televising the proceedings of Parliament.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it a fact that at a private luncheon the Prime Minister as good as said that he was in favour of this and that Mr. Speaker was making arrangements for it to be carried through? If so, can he make a statement about it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not prepared to make any statement about what I may have said at a private luncheon. I regard this as a House of Commons matter. I think that opinions in the House of Commons may be changing a little. I have heard all sorts of opinions expressed. Perhaps next Session it might be worth trying again, through the usual channels, to get the general view of the House. But I do not regard it as a Government matter; I regard it as a House of Commons matter.

Sir C. Osborne: Whatever may be said at a private meeting, will my right hon. Friend reject this monstrous proposal, especially in view of the question which appears in the last two lines of the next Question on the Order Paper about the difficulty of giving fair representation of hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: I have said that I regard this as a matter for the House of Commons and not for the Government.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that we agree with him that it certainly is a House of Commons matter and that if there are to be talks, we shall be glad to take part in them? If the Prime Minister thinks that this is a


matter—we are quite prepared to go into it—which can be usefully pursued in the last Session of a highly moribund Parliament—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—we have only just over a year to go under the statute law of the country, however much hon. Members opposite might want it extended—why does he think it is already too late in this Parliament to consider the question of Members' pay?

The Prime Minister: This is an entirely different matter, which is one for the House of Commons. The last matter mentioned is one on which the Government alone have the responsibility for making any financial proposals to the House.

Mr. Blackburn: If the right hon. Gentleman gives further consideration to this problem, will he remember that this is a place of work and not a place of entertainment?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that I have found over a number of years that one can sometimes have both.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that honest men fear nothing, and that those who do work here do not fear television?

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTION (WIRELESS AND TELEVISION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Select Committee of the House to consider and report on how to bring about more democratic proceedings on the radio and television during the next General Election, and how to ensure in these media a fair opportunity for candidates and for free speech for the working class during a General Election.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him in reply to the same Question on 22nd February, 1962, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE VISITS

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the congestion caused in London by State visits to this country, he will take steps to

advise the reduction of such visits in the future.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister really think that friendship between the peoples concerned is in any way consolidated by these visits? Does he not recognise that a great many people in London in particular find them an irritating and frustrating bore, that they lead to considerable congestion and that they serve no useful purpose whatever and sometimes do positive harm?

The Prime Minister: I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman objects more to the State visits than to the dislocation of the traffic.

Commander Donaldson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous pleasure that the people of Scotland had in the fact that the Queen received the first State visit for a century in Edinburgh recently, and that this is something to be desired to foster knowledge and understanding between countries and also good humour and affection between them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think this was a very remarkable occasion and much appreciated in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND INDUSTRY

Sir J. Eden: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the proposed changes in the Ministry of Defence, he will now re-examine the relationship between Government Departments and British industry, with particular reference to authorisation of expenditure on long-term development projects; and which Minister is to be responsible for stimulating scientific and technological development in British industry.

The Prime Minister: Among the considerations relevant to the points raised by my hon. Friend will be the recommendations of the Committeee on the Organisation of Civil Science. I understand that the Committee hopes to complete its work in the autumn and I think that I must await its report.

Sir J. Eden: Following the very welcome proposals for the reorganisation of


defence, may I ask whether a similar investigation will be made on the civil and industrial side, particularly bearing in mind the importance to our economy of British industry maintaining its technological lead and of what one might call the twilight existence of science and technology between Government and industry? Would not this be a fruitful area for inquiry and further thought?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It is for that reason that we have set up this working party. I hope that when we get the report we shall be able to make good use of it.

Mr. P. Williams: Certain sections of industry feel that they are not properly represented in the Cabinet. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of placing the Minister of Aviation in the Cabinet and making him responsible for science, technology and industry as well?

The Prime Minister: I think that these questions would be better asked when we have the report of this Committee, which has been specially appointed to do the job. I have seen the Report of the F.B.I. Working Party, which will be put before the Committee. I hope that in time we may have some useful results.

Mr. Manuel: Is there a blueprint for industrial scientific development over the next 10 years? We need a target and to know, at stated intervals, whether we are achieving it.

The Prime Minister: There are various questions involved but primarily it is one of the best organisation and methods and then of what should be the Government's part through financial support, other than the very large support which we already give. This is an attempt to see whether these activities could not be better co-ordinated and operated.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will, after the conclusion of a partial nuclear test ban treaty, make proposals designed to bridge the gap between the United States and Soviet draft treaty proposals on the duration and contents of the first stage of disarmament.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the successful conclusion of the Moscow negotiations for a partial nuclear test ban will advance the prospects of agreement on a treaty for general and complete disarmament. I do not think it would be helpful at this stage to enter into further detail.

Mr. Zilliacus: While I appreciate that point, may I ask for an assurance that the Prime Minister is prepared, if it seems a good thing to do, to put forward a Birtish compromise proposal to close the gap between the two and will not merely, as hitherto, be content with supporting the American position?

The Prime Minister: The last proposal was a joint proposal. What we want is to try to get some results. Experience shows that we do better if we can bring all our allies along with us. This is a very difficult and complicated matter and we must consult with all our friends to see where we can agree on a programme.

Mr. H. Wilson: As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is a very difficult and complicated matter. Does he recall that, some months ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) suggested that now that we had two drafts—the American and Russian—with considerable though not necessarily unbridgeable gaps between them, the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations might be sought in putting forward a compromise proposal? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he seemed to think there was great merit in that suggestion? Does he intend to pursue it?

The Prime Minister: I should prefer to consider carefully the situation we have now reached. We can face the question in a better position because we have made some advance. I am anxious that it should not be wasted in fruitless discussion and debate but that some further advance, whether large or small, should be made on the basis of this one.

Mr. Ridley: Would not these negotiations be greatly facilitated if the Leader of the Opposition ceased to refer to Lord Hailsham as the second best choice and the Government's odd job man?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION AND WARSAW PACT COUNTRIES

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the conclusion of a nuclear test ban treaty, in his exchange of views with President Kennedy on the questions that should now be taken up with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he will propose a treaty of non-aggression between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Alliance countries, and the establishment of a zone in central Europe comprising both parts of Germany and some of Germany's neighbours, free from nuclear weapons, military alliances and foreign forces, with the forces of the countries in the zone reduced, limited and subject to international supervision.

The Prime Minister: I do not think I can add at present to what was said in the communiqué issued at the end of the Moscow negotiations for a nuclear test ban. We have undertaken to inform our allies about the discussions on this subject in Moscow and to consult with them about continuing discussions on the question with the purpose of achieving agreement satisfactory to all.

Mr. Zilliacus: Would not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government have a policy of their own on these matters and are prepared, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition just now, to request the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Does not the Prime Minister agree that we must follow up what has happened in Moscow and not content ourselves with being second fiddle in Washington, and third man in Moscow accompanied by large claims at home?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member thinks that to be a fair and honest account of what has happened in the last three or four years, I cannot disabuse him. My policy is to see that we can follow up this advance, and I do not think that a statement of the Government's thoughts at the moment, without consultation with our allies, would assist that purpose.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: If it becomes clear in the negotiations that a system of control posts as proposed by Mr. Khrushchev can only be agreed to if there is also a non-aggression pact, will the Prime Minister seek to have such a pact in terms which would not compromise the position of Germany?

The Prime Minister: That, again, is a statement of one of the problems; it does not resolve it. I do not think that anything I would say now on this or that particular point would assist in doing what we are setting out to do, which is to make the next advance.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD DENNING (INQUIRY)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister if he will state an approximate date for the publication of the Report by Lord Denning.

The Prime Minister: I do not yet know the approximate date on which I shall receive Lord Denning's Report, so I am unable to give the right hon. Gentleman any information about publication.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Prime Minister receives Lord Denning's Report during the recess could he, without impinging on security, circulate substantial parts of it to right hon. and hon. Members? Is it likely that he will be able to comply with my request, which is a very reasonable one, before the date of the election?

The Prime Minister: What I undertook to do I will do. I undertook to discuss the Report, as soon as I received it, with the Leader of the Opposition. The Government will then decide the form in which it is to be published, whether in whole or in part.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, while it is quite proper and in common form that he should consult the Leader of the Opposition, right hon. and hon. Members are also entitled to know what Lord Denning's findings are—without, of course, impinging on security?

The Prime Minister: The first thing to do is to receive the Report and then I will carry out exactly what I told the House I would do.

Mr. Bellenger: This is not the first occasion when the Prime Minister has seemed to suggest that this is a matter for him and the Leader of the Opposition alone. Although one recognises that there are many matters of high security which must be kept comparatively secret, nevertheless is not the House of Commons entitled to know something about this matter, having helped to set up the inquiry?

The Prime Minister: It is very common practice, and a very good one, that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House should consult on matters of this kind. But I think the first thing is to receive the Report.

Mr. H. Wilson: In order that there may be no misunderstanding—as obviously there is—is not the position the Prime Minister has taken up on this as follows? In the case of the Radcliffe Report, which contained some, although not a great deal of, security matters, he did me the courtesy of showing me the whole of the Report from which, after discussion, certain security aspects were cut out and I was able to tell the House, as he himself did, that these did not invalidate the Report. Is it not now the Prime Minister's intention to show me the Denning Report so that there should be the same consultation about deletions? Is that still the Prime Minister's position? Will the minutes of evidence also be made available in the same way?

The Prime Minister: When I receive the Report I will discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government must then decide the form in which it is to be published. It is perfectly clear, and I have said this several times. But I do not think that this will lead to any great difference of opinion. In any case, the first thing is to see what the Report says.

Mr. Wilson: In a sense, both the Prime Minister and I have been put on the spot by some of these exchanges. Will he just confirm that he intends the procedure to be the same as that followed in the case of the Report of the Vassall Tribunal? This is that he will show me Lord Denning's Report and that we shall discuss it and the question of what should be deleted on grounds of

security? Obviously, in the last resort, the Government's wishes about security deletions must prevail; there was no disagreement last time at all about that. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do, and does his offer to show me the Report include the minutes of evidence?

The Prime Minister: I do not know about the minutes of evidence because I have not yet seen them, I will discuss the Report with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that we shall agree what ought to be omitted either on security or on any other grounds. [Hon. Members: "No."] When we have done that, the responsibility must rest with the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman say on what other grounds he is entitled to exclude hon. Members from knowing what Lord Denning's findings are? Will he answer that specifically and categorically?

The Prime Minister: I do not know how Lord Denning proposes to make his Report. He may decide to make it in various forms, whether in full or whether he himself would suggest a form in which he wishes it to be published. All this is very difficult to discuss until we see the Report.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman putting himself and all of us in a rather extraordinary position by his answer? Is he aware that the longstanding arrangement between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, which in the case of the Radcliffe Report and, if I may say so, the Philby case, worked very well, is based on the position that the Leader of the Opposition is in a sense trustee to the House and to some extent to the country to be able to certify that what has been deleted by the Government had to be deleted on the ground of security? Has not the Prime Minister rather altered that position, or suggested some possible alteration, and made it difficult for the Leader of the Opposition of the day, whoever he may be, to discharge that trusteeship responsibility, if he suggests that there is to be any exclusion of material on other than security grounds?

The Prime Minister: I think that that will not present any great difficulties. I


feel certain that when we discuss it together, as we have other matters, we shall agree in the same way.

Mr. Wade: Does the Prime Minister understand that what has concerned some hon. Members is his own expression "other grounds"? What had he in mind in using that phrase?

The Prime Minister: The expression "security" is one which is capable of interpretation. We have to consider what we may think a reasonable way of publishing this Report when we see in what form it is.

DEFENCE (CARRIER FORCE)

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): With permission, Sir, I will make a statement to the House.
The Government have had the question of aircraft carriers under consideration with a view to determining the requirement for the 1970's. After full consideration it has been decided that the carrier force likely to be required during that period is three carriers.
The life of H.M.S. "Eagle" and H.M.S. "Hermes" can with refits be extended until about 1980. H.M.S. "Victorious" and H.M.S. "Ark Royal" will come to the end of their useful lives in the early 1970s. A decision has, therefore, been taken to build one carrier replacement. This ship will be of around 50,000 tons and will give us, with H.M.S. "Eagle" and "Hermes", a force of three carriers. This decision will ensure that the Fleet Air Arm can maintain its rôle at least until 1980.
I have also had under consideration an aircraft replacement for the Sea Vixen. I am now able to announce that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have reached agreement on the characteristics of a common aircraft which will replace both the Sea Vixen and the Hunter. This aircraft which will be capable of operation either from land or from carriers will greatly increase the flexibility of our use of air power and provide the opportunity for economies in its disposition.
The aircraft will be based on the Hawker P1154 and a detailed study is at this moment proceeding. As soon as this is complete I will take steps to inform hon. Members of the result.

Mr. Healey: May I say, first, how glad we are on this side of the House that the Government have accepted the arguments which we have so often put forward against building an aircraft carrier of the size of the "Forrestal" class? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the cost of this proposed aircraft carrier?
Secondly, does his statement mean that no further aircraft carrier will be built for Britain over the next ten years?
Thirdly, will he assure the House that in deciding the procedure which he is to adopt for placing the contract for the aircraft carrier, he will bear in mind the needs of those development areas which are not benefitting from other Government shipbuilding programmes?
On the question of the new aircraft, we are delighted that, for the first time almost in post-war history, the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy have been able to agree on the characteristics of an aircraft. Would he give some idea of the number of aircraft of this type which he proposes to order and what the total cost is likely to be?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The all-up cost of the aircraft carrier is about £60 million, which will be spent over eight to ten years. The hon. Member asked about other aircraft carriers. The conclusion which we have reached is that we should go for an aircraft carrier fleet of three carriers, which will be composed, at least until 1980—when the "Ark Royal" and the "Victorious" go out—of the "Hermes" and the "Eagle". Whether a replacement of the "Eagle" and the "Hermes" will be made during the 1970s is a matter which will fall to be considered at that date.
The hon. Member asked about the shipbuilding yards. Naturally, all considerations such as that which he mentioned will be borne in mind, but I emphasise that the building of a ship of this character will be of substantial benefit to the whole of the shipbuilding industry, because the orders will be placed widely.
The hon. Member asked about the aircraft. As he knows, we never mention costs or numbers, because this would disclose our plans in considerable detail to an enemy. But I agree with him that the


decision on a common aircraft is a breakthrough in military operations and is much to be welcomed.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask when he expects to place the order for the P1154 aircraft? In view of the fairly large cost of the project, could he give an assurance that the numbers of aircraft envisaged previously for the Royal Air Force will not be cut?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In my statement I am not announcing any cut. I announced the building of a carrier and the study of a common aircraft. As for the placing of the orders for the aircraft, I should like, first, to complete the study. This is going on at full pressure with the co-operation of Hawkers and my right hon. Friends the Minister of Aviation and the Secretary of State for Air. I hope to be able to say something mere definitive to the House about the results of that study when we review it in the autumn.

Mr. Lubbock: Is it proposed that the new aircraft carrier will be nuclear-powered or conventionally powered? May I ask him, with respect to the aircraft which are to be used on it, whether it means that we are committed for another generation to the use in both the Air Force and the Navy of aircraft using comon engines for both lift and propulsion and that we have abandoned all work on the technique of using separate engines for these two rôles.

Mr. Thorneycroft: We studied very carefully the question of whether to go for nuclear propulsion. No doubt there may well be a future for nuclear propulsion for surface ships, but I think that to embark on what would be largely an experimental venture in the case of a capital ship like an aircraft carrier would be to take a very considerable gamble. We might be wiser to make the first venture in a somewhat smaller ship. The cost would certainly be substantially increased if there were nuclear propulsion and, of course, the advantages of nuclear propulsion are much more if the whole fleet is nuclear-propelled and not just one element in it. In those circumstances, this is planned upon a conventional basis.
The aircraft which is being examined is based on the Hawker P1154, which is

an aircraft based on using the same engine for lift and propulsion. It must be remembered that it has not been easy to find an aircraft which is light enough and at the same time powerful enough to be able to carry out the dual rôles of replacing both the Hunter and the Sea Vixen. There seems to be a great possibility in this particular conception. I therefore ask the hon. Member to await the result of this consideration. We hope to be able to report later in the autumn.

Mr. McMaster: With respect to the aircraft carrier itself, when will the keel be laid for replacement of the "Victorious"? With respect to the aircraft, will my right hon. Friend go on considering either the multi-jet or a blend between the multi-jet and the vectored thrust, because this must be a heavy aircraft of considerable range?
In view of the Feilden Report and other reports, will my right hon. Friend consider the particular needs of development districts, where there is high unemployment, when placing orders for the aircraft carrier and the aircraft?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already given an answer about the various areas. I imagine that I could be pressed on the interests of many areas. I emphasise again that the order for this ship will be of substantial benefit, I think, to the whole shipbuilding industry.
The aircraft we are studying is the P1154, which is the Hawker aircraft. I should like to complete the study of that aircraft before making any further announcement, although I emphasise that this is a very important military advance to be able to get increased flexibility by using men, whether they are in light or dark blue, operating either from land or aircraft carriers.
With regard to the replacement, which I would regard in this case as a replacement for the "Ark Royal", I emphasise that it will enable us to complete a fleet of three carriers and preparatory work of placing orders will now be set in train, including the design drawings and the rest.

Mr. Lee: Is it not the case that at present technical opinion favours S.T.O.L. development rather than V.T.O.L.? The right hon. Gentleman


said in his statement that he was coming down quite flat footed as far as vertical lift is concerned. Do I take it that S.T.O.L. is now out?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The V.T.O.L. is capable of S.T.O.L. If one has an aircraft which is capable of vertical take-off and it chooses a short take-off, it will improve its performance in many other characteristics, including the weapon and endurance capacity it undertakes.

Captain Litchfield: While I think that it may be necessary to consider later whether three carriers in the 1970s will be adequate, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on the decision in principle after these long and very controversial discussions?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend speaks with the necessary experience in these matters on this topic. I hope that he will, however, recognise that we have given very careful consideration to this matter. We had to consider the military, technical and financial considerations and I am sure that this decision for the three carrier fleet is the right one.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the purpose in building another carrier at a cost of £60 million—that is only an estimate, it may be £70 million or £80 million—merely to provide work for unemployed shipbuilders, or is it a military necessity? Does the Minister appreciate that a carrier of this capacity, of this tonnage, is highly vulnerable in this modern nuclear age? While there is some advantage in having a common aircraft—I appreciate the purpose of that—

would he not reconsider this question in the light of the modern military position?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope that the right hon. Member will recognise that the carrier still remains probably the most flexible instrument of conventional war and that in these days the whole concept of conventional war and conventional defence certainly should not be ruled out from his thinking in defence policy. So far as vulnerability is concerned, the best advice I have is that at present the means of defence are, at any rate, keeping full pace with means of offence.

Sir J. Eden: While welcoming both the decision to build a carrier and also the agreement on a joint aircraft, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend can assure the House that in view of the vital importance to our position in the Far East of maintaining our air power he will speed up the process of consideration to ensure that the Hunter replacement is in service before the 1970s? Will he guarantee that this can in no way, so far as he is able personally to oversee these matters, affect the TSR2 programme?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall certainly proceed with all the expedition that I can. My task is to see that we get a balanced force of all the services available for our defences, but it is certainly not my purpose to advantage one by sacrificing another, nor have I sought to in this decision.

Mr. Healey: Mr. Healey rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot commit myself, but it is just possible that somebody might be able to discuss some of these topics tomorrow. I think that we have to put a stop to it now.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

3.48 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday, 24th October, at eleven o'clock.
In moving this Motion, perhaps it would be convenient, to remove any possible doubt about the time of meeting on 24th October, to move it in a slightly amended form from that which appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that that is permissible and probably for the general convenience.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I wish to oppose this Motion for the following reason. We have been given no information by the Government as to when the committee under Sir Milner Holland, which is to investigate pressures on tenants in the London area, is to be constituted. The problem is one of grave urgency for many London tenants. In my constituency, for example, the slum empire of mystery landlord Brady—which flits from one address to another—has come to life again under the guise of Various Tenancies Ltd., now at 113, Clapham Road, S.W.4. I have described this company as
the same group of shady people who operated this racket years ago".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 246.]
The Brady outfit is in operation again with all the old tricks and with renewed vigour. This company will be reaping a rich harvest during the Long Recess while Parliament is not sitting and while the Government are inactive and the Milner Holland Committee has not begun to function. I am not willing that we should go into recess while this kind of intimidation and blackmail is going on. I want a concrete assurance from the Government that effective action is to be taken without delay to protect the victims of the Brady racket in my constituency and elsewhere.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: Many of us were rather disturbed by the failure of the Minister of Defence, a few moments ago, to answer a very direct

question put to him by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about the future of the TSR2. Many of us will recall that last year the Government waited until the House was in recess before announcing the cancellation of the Blue Water project.
Could the Leader of the House give us an assurance, since the Minister of Defence is to speak in the debate tomorrow, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, that the House will not rise until the Minister of Defence has made a statement on the future of the TSR2?

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). I am certainly opposed to the House adjourning until we have had at least two definite replies to important questions which have been raised. After all, this may be the last opportunity.
It is possible that this Motion is the death knell of this Parliament. We do not know what is to happen. In view of the timing of the Stratford-on-Avon by-election and the Prime Minister's answers about the Denning report, further circulation will be given this afternoon to the suspicion that there will be an autumn election. Therefore, this is our last chance, perhaps, to try to hold this set of Ministers on the Front Bench to certain promises which have been made.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government was, at any rate, sufficiently impressed by some of the abundant evidence brought forward by my hon. Friends and some sections of the Press about housing scandals to promise to establish a committee on the subject. We do not know what the powers of the committee will be, what its membership will be, what its firm terms of reference will be, or anything about it. It was certainly to the dismay of many hon. Members yesterday that in a Written Answer the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he was not yet in a position to make an announcement on the subject, but that he would make an announcement when he was ready to do so. There was no promise that he would do so before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
In view of the character of the debate which we had the other day on this subject and of the known anxiety not only


in London, but throughout the country, about the kind of exploitation of tenants and racketeering that has been going on, it would be absolutely wrong for the House to disperse at the end of this week before a statement is made to us about the powers, terms of reference and membership of the Milner Holland Committee so that hon. Members will have an opportunity to put some points on this subject to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. If we adjourn before that is done, there will be a suspicion that this subject will be evaded and shelved and that no serious action will be taken on behalf of the tenants.
There is, further, the wider question of speculation in land and general property racketeering which has been going on. Twice in the last fortnight I have had occasion to draw attention to a case in Staffordshire, also connected with the late Mr. Rachman. We received the stupid answer from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the late Mr. Rachman had been prospecting for oil in Staffordshire and that that was why a piece of mainly derelict land of about 50 acres had been over-valued to the extent of £100,000.
My constituents will want to know how it came about that this mainly derelict land was so valued by the Eagle Star Insurance Company for the purposes of advancing £100,000 to a company called Huntflink Investments, composed of the late Mr. Rachman and his wife. My constituents will want to know where the £100,000 has gone, whether it has gone out of the country, and into what other companies it has gone.
My constituents will also want me to report to them on the spider's web of companies that are known to exist, about which a great deal has been written in the newspapers recently, which have been concerned with this kind of exploitation and racketeering. It may be going on under the noses of many hon. Members. There may be many hon. Members who have companies in their constituencies that only conceal and disguise some of the speculators and racketeers who are deliberately bidding up the prices of land, and the prices of property for speculative purposes, thereby having a serious effect upon the whole housing situation.
We want an inquiry into the nature of these companies. I am sure that, had the evidence which has so far been submitted emanated from shareholders in those companies, it would have been the cause of an immediate investigation by the Board of Trade. If some of the things which have been published, to which I could draw the attention of the Leader of the House, in the last fortnight about this spider's web of companies had come from within those companies and been reported to the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade would have been compelled under the Companies Act to establish an inquiry. Because the evidence was submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), it was brushed off yesterday by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who said that there was no adequate evidence at the moment for him to establish such an inquiry.
This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. It is, again, a case where the suspicion will be spread that because perhaps some of the paymasters of the Tory Party are involved in some of these businesses the Government will not establish an inquiry.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Swingler: In that case, the means of laying that suspicion is for the Government to accept that a prima facie case for an inquiry into these companies has been established and for them to promise to set up such an inquiry. We want to know that that investigation will be begun before the House adjourns. We want to know the powers and the nature of that investigation before the House adjourns, maybe for the purposes of this Parliament for ever.
Therefore, before we are asked to decide upon the Motion, I hope that the Leader of the; House will be able to tell us that before the end of this week the Minister of Housing and Local Government will state exactly the nature and membership of the Milner Holland Committee which is to inquire into the exploitation of tenants; and, further, that an independent investigation will be set up into racketeering companies involved in speculation and over-valuation of land, about whom many of us are very anxious to submit evidence.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: I, too, wish to oppose the Motion, for the reasons given by my hon. Friends the Members for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and for an additional reason.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies will be informed by the Leader of the House that there is a good deal of concern at this moment about the date which the Government intend to fix for the inauguration of Malaysia under the Malaysia Bill. So far, we have had the announcement of the intention as being 31st August.
I hope that before the debate is concluded, if the Leader of the House cannot persuade the Secretary of State to come here and make a statement, he will at least use the good offices of his Parliamentary Private Secretary to convey a message to the Secretary of State so that we can have a reply given to us at the end of the debate.
This is a matter which will involve the most profound and serious international repercussions. At this moment there is going on in Manila a summit conference of the heads of Malaya, the Philippines and Indonesia. The question of the Federation and the timing of the inauguration of the Federation has now become a question which may have very serious repercussions indeed, unless Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to act with some wisdom.
Complaints have been made from this side about the forcing of the pace of federation, but die doubts have been set aside because it was said that at a previous conference of the Foreign Ministers of the three countries in South-East Asia an agreement was reached between all three and that Indonesia and the Philippines said that they would welcome the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. The right hon. Gentleman will know—his right hon. Friends certainly know, because they were informed of it during the course of the debate on the Malaysia Bill—that that welcome was conditional.
It was conditional on one very important proviso which was written into the agreement signed by the Foreign Ministers and now forming the substance of

the Manila conference. The proviso was that the support of the people of the Borneo territories should be ascertained by an independent and impartial authority, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or his representative. Moreover, the representative of Malaya at that conference undertook to consult Her Majesty's Government about the steps to be taken to implement this agreement, in consultation with the Secretary-General.
I want to know, and the House is entitled to know, the answer to the question which was not answered during the Second Reading and other stages of the Malaysia Bill—whether those consultations with the Secretary-General have taken place and what action the British Government propose to take following those consultations. My information is that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, has made it clear that he could not ascertain the views of the people of the Borneo territories unless he was given a period of three or four months in which to make the necessary arrangements for finding out their views. If my information is wrong, I hope that it will be put right, but if it is not corrected, I shall stand by it.
Are Her Majesty's Government now intent on rushing ahead with the in auguration of this Federation against the opposition of Indonesia and possibly of the Philippines and without giving the Secretary-General proper time to conduct the investigations which were promised by the Tunku of Malaya? If Her Majesty's Government are not able to give an assurance that the date for the inauguration will be postponed long enough to enable the United Nations investigation to take place, we shall be forced to conclude that once again Her Majesty's Government are prepared to use the United Nations to cover up—

Mr. Speaker: I had some hopes, in the interests of the hon. Member, that at that point he was about to say that in certain circumstances he would oppose the Motion. He will have to bring his observations somewhere in relation to the Motion.

Mr. Warbey: I was about to do that, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that in my last sentence I was possibly straying a


little outside the terms of the Motion in expressing my own view of what should happen.
I conclude by saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I could go on for quite a long time if hon. Members opposite wish. There are a number of other reasons why hon. Members ought to oppose the Motion, but I do not wish to produce them at this moment.
I will conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will show some respect for the authority of the United Nations, will recognise that this is an international question on which United Nations mediation will be required in the future if not now, and will take the necessary steps to delay the implementation of federation so that the Secretary-General can make a proper investigation of what the people of these territories really want.

4.5 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I suggest to the Leader of the House that we cannot rise for three months until we have had a satisfactory solution of the problem of Malta. As the House is well aware, very important talks are going on—at least, we hope that they are still going on—to draw up a constitution for an independent Malta. It is a welcome fact that on both sides of the House there is broad agreement that the time has come to give independence to Malta, and thus there is an opportunity for solving on an agreed basis what has been a longstanding subject of controversy between us.
However, there are disturbing Press reports that the talks have been running into difficulties and might be in danger of breaking down. It would be quite undesirable for this country to launch Malta on the seas of independence without having first endowed her with a thoroughly modern and democratic constitution under which fair elections could be held. The House will be aware that the Malta Labour Party has long held that such conditions for fair elections do not exist in Malta and that the last elections were not fairly conducted. Indeed, it supplied documentary evidence to the Special Commission of the United Nations on what it claimed were grave irregularities in the conduct of the elections in February. 1962.
As a result of that evidence, we on this side of the House have frequently pressed the Government for an inquiry into those elections. The Government have not seen, fit to agree, but on 10th May of this year the Special Commission of the United Nations pointed out that the conditions under which the general election of February, 1962, took place—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to help the hon. Lady, but we cannot discuss the merits or demerits of various aspects of constitution-making upon this Motion. The problem is whether the House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn until Thursday, 24th October, at eleven o'clock.

Mrs. Castle: I am trying to explain the points upon which these talks on Malta are in danger of breaking down. If this breakdown takes place, it will be intolerable for the House to rise until it has had not only a statement from the Government, but an opportunity for discussing the causes of the breakdown. It is because I am hopeful that the Adjournment of the House will not be delayed that I am trying to bring to the attention of the Government the danger points around which the breakdown is likely to take place. I am quoting the Malta Labour Party's case of the conduct of the elections to prove that there is a case to which we must give serious consideration.
There must be a constitution which will ensure that undue influence of any kind is not used during the election and under which the Malta Labour Party will have the right to press its claim that there should be fresh elections in Malta before independence takes place as the United Nations Special Committee drew attention to the controversy which raged about the conduct of the last elections and suggested that the holding of new elections under international observation ought to be considered by the administering Power, which is us.
I am, therefore, asking for some enlightenment on this issue, because my attitude to the Motion would be governed by the reply I got. I would have to oppose the Motion unless I was satisfied that we were to have a statement and that that statement would show that the Government were meeting the legitimate


minimum democratic demands of the Malta Labour Party. If they are not, all the statement would tell us would be that there had been a breakdown in the talks and that we were to impose undemocratic solutions on Malta.
I am not prepared to go away for three months and leave the situation like that. That is why my attitude to this Motion will be governed by the sort of answer I get today, and whether we get an assurance that this Government will not say to Malta, "You can have independence, but you cannot have it on the basis of a democratic, modern-type constitution equivalent to that in every other democratic country in the world, and you cannot have fresh elections before independence takes place". If the Government give those answers, the talks will break down, and there will be an imposed solution, a solution which I would not wish the House to accept.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I shall not support the Motion unless the right hon. Gentleman informs the House of the Government's intentions with regard to the publication of the Denning report. This matter has become all the more urgent and important because of the possibility of an autumn General Election. I know that it will not be very easy for the Leader of the House to let us into the Government's secret on this matter—

Mr. Lipton: The right hon. Gentleman has already done that.

Mr. Mendelson: If my hon. Friend has that information, good luck to him, but I have to confess ignorance in the matter.
But that is not the issue that I am putting to the Leader of the House. The Government have carefully cleared the decks and made it possible for the House to adjourn without having any business to return to in the autumn. They have made it possible for there to be a General Election during the Recess.
The matter of the Denning report is a very serious one indeed. The method of inquiry was decided on by the Government. As the House knows, there was a good deal of disagreement on the precise form of the inquiry. There were demands for a Select Committee, and also for other types of inquiry. The Govern-

ment's view prevailed in the end, as it must, but it means that this Report will be submitted to the Prime Minister, and it will be for him to decide the way in which Members of the House, and the general public, should learn what is in it.
It is conceivable that some time during the Recess the report will be sent to the Prime Minister, who will then consider it. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will supply my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the report, and there will then be discussions between them to decide which parts of the report should be published, and it is here that the first difficulty arises.
Many hon. Members on this side of the House, and, I am sure, on the benches opposite, too, clearly understood that these discussions between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend would be confined to the decision to be taken in relation to matters affecting the security of the State, and whether such information should or should not be communicated to right hon. and hon. Members. If there is even the slightest suggestion that matters other than those relating strictly to the security of the State are not to be communicated to right hon. and hon. Members, I hope that this will be repudiated by the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members.
We need an assurance from the Leader of the House that there is no question of changing in any way the established convention that only matters relating to State security are excluded, but I go further and say that if there is any suggestion that other matters might not be communicated to the House, I would not be in favour of my right hon. Friend discussing the matter with the Prime Minister at any time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it would matter for the purpose of whether this House should adjourn or not whether the hon. Member would be in favour of his right hon. Friend doing that, or not doing it.

Mr. Mendelson: With respect. Mr. Speaker, I would be far less alarmed about the precise nature of these consultations, and the final decision on what is to be excluded from the report, if the House were sitting, when questions could


be put to the Prime Minister on this matter.
However, I pass to the second reason why we need a firm assurance from the right hon. Gentleman about the Government's intentions with regard to the publication of the Denning report. If the report is received during the Recess, and the Prime Minister then decides to publish part of it, he may also decide shortly afterwards to advise the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament. If that were to happen, the House might never have an opportunity of considering the Denning report, and such a situation could lead to considerable controversy. As is well known, this is a matter which concerns the general public and all hon. Members, because in their constituencies they have been asked many questions on this subject.
I have always been in favour of getting at the facts and letting the people in the constituencies know them as soon as possible. It should be made clear beyond peradventure that the Government have an equal interest in seeing that this report is not only read by the people who want to read it, but that there is an opportunity of debating it in the House. I shall, therefore, not support the Motion unless the Leader of the House informs us of the Government's intentions in this matter.
On previous occasions the Leader of the House has said, quite rightly, that if a situation arose which led to a request being made for the recall of Parliament such a request would be considered, but the House knows that if only a certain number of hon. Members demand a recall the Government are not obliged to act on that request, It is clear that on this matter of the Denning report the Government have a special obligation. This is not a matter which cannot be foreseen. The Government are probably well aware of what is going to happen, and must have made their plans accordingly. I therefore submit that there is a special obligation of the Government to ensure that Parliament is recalled if, after the publication of the report, they decide that Parliament should be dissolved, and it is the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that this will be done.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Having regard to the series of most urgent problems relating to Wales that were raised during the debate yesterday, and the profoundly unsatisfactory replies given by the Government to the appeals made by my hon. Friends, I shall oppose the Motion. The idea of being away from here for nearly three months without a reminder being given to Ministers of the urgent and difficult problems confronting us in Wales today is completely out of the question.
Even more urgent than the problems raised yesterday is that of local government in Wales. The Government have the report on this subject. This report—and I am not the only one who holds this opinion—means the utter disintegration, and, in fact, destruction, of local government in Wales. I know that I am speaking for most of my Welsh colleagues in asking for an assurance that whatever may be the contents of that report the Government will take no steps to implement any of its proposals or recommendations until at least Welsh Members of Parliament have had an opportunity again on the Floor of the House to debate, discuss and possibly oppose the attitude that may be adopted by the Government.
Unless we can have that assurance I shall certainly not support the Motion.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I want to say a few words in support of the Motion. For several months groups of people all over the country have been expressing their fear and anxiety about the nature of atomic tests. I should have thought that hon. Members would be anxious to be released from this place in order that they might go all over the country explaining to people the valuable step that has now been taken to release them from that danger. I would have thought that the reassurance which hon. Members could bring to several groups in their constituencies would be of prime importance, and that the extent of our economic recovery would also have been a matter of reassurance to people who have been anxious about the problems of unemployment in certain parts of the country and the extent of our economic malaise.
Hon. Members, now shortly to be released from this House, could convey to their constituents the fact that their fears were misconceived, that the policy of the Government has been admirably successful, and that there are great opportunities, particularly for exporters, in the future. In view of all those factors I should have thought that it would be most important that hon. Members should be released at the earliest date.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) speaks with his tongue in his cheek. It is something that he does very frequently. It makes his contributions no less attractive, but he will not mind if we do not take them as seriously as others less well equipped might do—because we know that he does not mean them.
My hon. Friends have raised a number of important questions. The question of the TSR2, about which considerable doubt has been expressed, is a matter on which the Government should say something further before we rise. We cannot be blamed for being suspicious, in view of what has happened on previous occasions when expensive Government projects which have been boosted to the skies and lauded as the latest achievements of a beneficent Administration have been abandoned as soon as Parliament has gone into recess. I understand that the TSR2 has cost about £200 million. Doubts have been cast on the question whether the project will continue. It will be reprehensible if the Government were to allow Parliament to depart and then to make an announcement, during our absence, knowing that they cannot be challenged.
My hon. Friends have raised the questions of Malta, Malaysia, the Denning report and housing, and all these show the difficulties of our unfinished business. I want to mention something else. The hon. Member for Barry spoke of our economic recovery. I hope that he is not speaking too soon. We have had a lamentable year this year in relation to unemployment. Thank goodness, it is lower this month that it has been for some time, although still higher than it was twelve months ago, but I forecast that we have seen the lowest level of unemployment this year, and that it is

highly likely that the unemployment figure will continue to rise over the next few months [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We shall see.
My view is that we have touched the trough of unemployment, and I see nothing in the supine approach of the Government to make me believe we are likely to have a lower unemployment figure than at present. I think that we shall be confronted with economic difficulties. We shall find that the hard core of unemployment which exists in certain areas of England and Wales, as well as Scotland, will persist, despite whatever efforts the Government say they are making.
Nevertheless, on balance, I advise my hon. Friends not to oppose the Motion. I will explain why. My hon. Friends are incorrigible optimists. After twelve years of "this lot" they still expect to get some satisfaction out of the presence of Ministers on the Government Front Bench. For all the good they do they might as well not be there. I only hope that they will desert their Departments and go away for a long holiday, because the mischief that they have done to this country's economy and social purpose over the last twelve years is of such a character that it is far better that they should leave the job alone altogether. If they will not go away for good, as the country wishes them to do, at least let them have the longest possible holiday away from interfering with their Departments.
I can conceive of nothing better. My hon. Friends are indefatigable in their enthusiasm, but I fear that they will not get any more satisfaction out of the Government during the coming weeks than they have got during the last twelve years. This group of Ministers are supine in their indifference, wrapped in complacency and soporific with sleep—absolutely sodden. I am told that the Derby winner was drugged or doped. I wish that the lot opposite had been doped. They might have moved a little faster then.
I must beware of the Leader of the House. I know that he is regarded as an excellent tipster. But it was not a racehorse that he tipped last time; he tipped Leicester City to win the Cup. He went on to say that he was an excellent tipster, but when I see his name on a Motion proposing that we should adjourn until


Thursday. 24th October, my first thought is that we shall adjourn to quite a different date. He has been proved consistently wrong with his tips, and I find myself wondering whether we shall be here on 24th October. I express the view now that when the Leader of the House tells us that there is not to be an election this year we ought to watch the situation very carefully in case there is one. Nothing makes me more suspicious than when the Leader of the House starts giving tips of that character.
I do not wish to dash the enthusiasm of my hon. Friends any more than is necessary, but I do not wish them to be persistently disappointed by the inadequate quality of Ministerial replies. I could not advise them to oppose the Motion. On the whole, they will find more solace in mixing with their constituents and hearing what they have to say about this group of Ministers—which will provide them with even more scorpions and whips than they have at present with which to beat the Government if they dare to return to face the House after an election.
There is no doubt that the Government are tired and supine, and that the country wishes them gone. We cannot get rid of them until they wish to go. I thank heaven that the five-year Parliament Act was never changed to a seven-year Parliament Act. We know that they will be gone almost for a certainty this time next year. They cannot go too soon.
Meanwhile, I suggest to my hon. Friends that Ministers should not be encouraged to do any more damage either to our democratic institutions or to this country's policy by interfering with their Departments any longer than is necessary. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends not to oppose the Motion.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I shall reply to the serious points which have been made, which do not include the points made in the last speech. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-east (Mr. Callaghan) must be getting a little worried about what he has read about the short list that is being prepared for him in Cardiff, South-east.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: That was a "no ball".

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he has only just started, but as he has ventured to mention the matter, I would remind him that he never replied to the challenge that I issued after he told us that the Conservatives would win Cardiff, South-East at the next election, when I invited him to contest the seat against me. Would he like to take up that challenge now? If so, I shall gladly take him up on it.

Mr. Macleod: Of course not—for the simple reason that if I tried to contest all the seats that the Tories have succeeded in winning during the last twelve years, and will succeed in winning during the next twelve years, I would be fighting elections weekly.
I wish to make two general points before considering the important points which various hon. Members have put to me. First, the length of this suggested Recess is 82 days, which is in accordance with the precedents which go back for a number of years. That is to say, it is in the bracket of the precedents. Secondly, Standing Order No. 112, which is always quoted on these occasions, makes it possible that whenever the House stands adjourned, if I may quote the words,
…and it is represented to Mr. Speaker by Her Majesty's Ministers that the public interest requires…
an earlier meeting can be arranged.
Of course, we give an undertaking, as I have given before when replying to debates such as this, that we would consider representations, not only from the Opposition Front Bench but from any hon. Member of the House.
Taking it slightly out of order in relation to my speech, because it relates to the Standing Order No. 112, I wish to refer to the second point made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He said that an undertaking in relation to Standing Order No. 112 related to a dangerous situation in international affairs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows there is nothing about that in the Order, and that any situation regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant the reassembly of the House at a date earlier than that proposed could be covered, whether it dealt with foreign affairs, Commonwealth affairs or domestic affairs.

Mr. Mendelson: If the right hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that I gave that merely as one example.

Mr. Macleod: I understand that. But I make the point that it is in no way limited.
Both the hon. Member for Penistone and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) referred to matters partly related to the Milner Holland Committee and partly to the debate that we had a short time ago. I assure them we all share their anxiety about some of the revolting disclosures. They are not new. We have known about them for years. I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that I believe that he would be almost the first person to stamp on any form of McCarthyism, and that he really ought not to say that the Government do not propose to take action because, in effect, some of the "paymasters" of the Conservative Party might be involved. That is the language of McCarthyism and it ought not to be used in this House.

Mr. Swingler: May I say to the Leader of the House—I take his comment—that I said that if the Government refuse, without proper reason being given—the right hon. Gentleman says that there is abundant evidence available to establish an investigation into these affairs—to hold an inquiry, the Government will spread the suspicion that they have something to conceal. That is what I said. It is up to the Government. If we accept that the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is evidence to be investigated—we all think that there is—will not he ask the Board of Trade to establish the inquiry necessary? That is all that I am asking.

Mr. Macleod: Because we may differ about remedies, it does not mean that an hon. Member is entitled to use the sort of language which the hon. Member used.
In the recent debate hon. Members opposite put forward with great fervour views that centred, for example, on the proposition that the Rent Acts should be repealed. We do not hold that view. We argued—I think with considerable cogency—that we believed that the remedy lies in the provision of more

housing—I am sure that that is the best of all remedies; in the survey of Sir Edward Milner Holland—I cannot yet give the names of those who will serve on the Committee, although they will be given at the earliest date; in the improvement of older property, and in making sure—as the Minister urged local authorities—that full use is made of the 1961 Housing Act. Those powers are helpful in the control of multi-occupation.

Mr. Swingler: The Leader of the House has said that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will make an announcement as soon as possible. Can he say that his right hon. Friend will make an announcement at a time to enable us to have the opportunity to put Questions to him about housing before the House adjourns on Friday?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot give that undertaking, for an obvious reason.
Having had a great deal of experience of forming committees and inviting people to serve upon them, I know that one cannot always rely on getting those people, because they may be occupied in other affairs or unable to find the additional time which would be necessary. It may not be possible to do this in time. But I say to both hon. Members that we wish to have the full Milner Holland Committee set up as swifty as we possibly can and that if there is any information about that which could be given to the House by my right hon. Friend before the House rises, it will be given.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred, almost in the form of continued supplementary questions to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, to the future of the TSR2. I would rather not deal with that myself. But I will get in touch with the Minister of Defence tomorrow to see whether—probably in his speech—an answer can be given to the points which were raised by both hon. Gentlemen.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) raised the question of Malaysia. The Malaysia Bill went through the House with a considerable welcome, but—it is a fair point to make—with one or two warning noises, such as occurred today. In relation to the United Nations


and this matter, as the hon. Member knows very well, Mr. Narasimhan, representing the Secretary-General visited this area in I think, February of this year. Here, there is no question of the sort of situation arising in respect of which it has become normal for the United Nations specially to interest itself; that is to say, either a breakdown of law and order or a threat to peace.
I do not believe that anybody seriously suggests that the formation of Malaysia—to which we would wish to send our very best wishes—carries either of those dangers. But we are completely in touch with the Secretary-General on these matters and I will also see that the points made today by the hon. Member are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
On the question of Malta, raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the difficulty is that the conference is still going on as the hon. Lady very well knows. I have had a lot of experience of being in the chair at conferences relating to Colonial Territories, and when the hon. Lady says that the conference is running into difficulties I can reply that I cannot remember a conference that did not. Perhaps we should not be too disappointed about that; it always happens. There is a measure of agreement, and it is quite right to say that there is a considerable measure of disagreement as well. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is trying to hammer that out. If the conference ends in time for a statement to be made, them one can be made.
I take the hon. Lady's point about elections. I have been familiar with this point for some time and also with the attitude of the Malta Labour Party to it. However, I have never thought it wise to shout to the man at the wheel. This conference is still going on and, with my right hon. Friend chairing it, I think that the House would be well advised to leave the matter in that way.

Mrs. Castle: Does that mean that if the talks are still going on on, say, Thursday, we shall not get a statement? Could not we have an interim statement from his right hon. Friend before the House rises?

Mr. Macleod: It would be wrong for this House to go on sitting from day to day just on the chance that on one of those days it would be appropriate to make a statement. That would be absurd.
As to whether any interim statement could be made, I will put that to my right hon. Friend, although I am fairly confident that his answer would be against it. As one can never tell about these things—conferences are fluid things, particularly this sort of conference—I am sure that it would be wrong to make an interim statement to the House unless a clearly defined point of either agreement or disagreement had been reached.

Mrs. Castle: Could the Leader of the House at any rate give us an assurance—and surely this is a reasonable and fair question to ask—that an irrevocable step will not be taken in relation to constitutional developments in Malta until this House has had an opportunity to discuss the matter?

Mr. Macleod: No irrevocable steps in that sense can ever be taken because a Bill such as an independence Bill must come before the House. It would be wrong to try to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State in dealing with a conference of this nature.
I have answered one of the two points put by the hon. Member for Penistone. The other point he made was something of a supplementary to the question asked about the Denning report. I do not think, with respect, that the hon. Member will expect me to put a gloss on the words of the Prime Minister. The procedure in these matters is clearly defined and understood. As the Prime Minister said, security is a matter that is not very easy to define. He said that he did not believe that there would be any difficulty, nor do I, in the discussions taking place with the Leader of the Opposition—as they have done before on a number of occasions—nor did he believe that there would be any difficulty in reaching an appropriate agreement.
An echo of the Welsh debate came from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), who spoke briefly in the debate yesterday. Regarding the points he made in that debate about unemployment, I hope that he will agree, even if he did not accept it all


that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour gave a cogent answer at the end of yesterday's debate. Naturally, his other main point about the Local Government Boundary Commission was somewhat out with the scope of my hon. Friend's speech, but I will see that he is sent a separate answer about that by the Minister.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Can the Leader of the House give me an assurance that during the Recess no decision will be taken on any proposals following any recommendations that the Local Boundary Commission for Wales may make to the Government until Parliament reassembles and can have an opportunity of discussing such matters on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Macleod: Such matters can always be brought to the Floor of the House. I do not know of any such proposals and, therefore, I think that the Opposition are safeguarded from the point of view that the hon. Member has in mind. I would not think it right to give an assurance which might have the effect of holding up altogether action by the Minister.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's last few words can only be construed as a threat to the people of Wales. Will he be explicit and give an assurance that whatever recommendations may be made—and we have more than a suspicion about them—they will not be ratified until the House meets again after the Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot be wholly explicit on a matter which concerns one of my right hon. Friend's Departments.

I will see that a letter is sent to him today on this matter, although I do not believe that the hon. Member's concern is, on the whole, soundly based.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was the only hon. Member, at any rate vocally, who supported the Motion.

Mr. Callaghan: And now he has left the Chamber.

Mr. Macleod: Perhaps he has started his holiday. Incidentally, it seems odd that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not present while we are having one of these debates, though I gather that he is in another place.

Mr. Lipton: Oh, no.

Mr. Callaghan: Withdraw.

Mr. Macleod: All hon. Members know what I mean.
I recall the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne saying that we always have these debates. "We always oppose these Motions, but we would be horrified if our opposition succeeded," he said, in effect. I believe that to be a sound doctrine and I hope, having done my best to answer the questions put to me and having given an assurance on certain other matters—such as the Welsh point, on which an answer will be sent as soon as possible, in the next 24 hours from the Ministry concerned—the House will agree to accept the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday, 24th October, at eleven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ORDER BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES.)

4.48 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7 to leave out from "peace)" to "shall" in line 9.

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss, at the same time, two further Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from "five" to the end of line 3, and in the Title, line 2, to leave out from "1936" to the end of line 3.

Mr. Weitzman: That will be satisfactory. The two Amendments being discussed with the one which I have moved are consequential.
The Amendment seeks to delete from the Bill any reference to offences under Section 1 of the Public Meeting Act, 1908. I remind the Committee that that Section makes it an offence for
Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together…
Under the 1908 Act, the offence is punishable by a fine not exceeding £5 or imprisonment for one month.
I make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that that should not be the offence. If the Amendment were carried, the law would remain as it is; in other words, it would still be, as it has been since 1908, an offence under Section 1 of the Public Meeting Act, 1908, and punishable in the same way. I am not aware of any body of opinion—other than, perhaps, the Fascists—who have expressed the view that in this respect the law should be altered. Despite that fact, the Government are taking this opportunity to alter that provision; that is to say, they are treating this offence in exactly the same way as if it were an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, carrying the same penalty.
Why are the Government doing that? It would probably not be in order at this moment for me to refer to the other Amendments in detail, but, in passing, I would say that a strong case was made out for making quite clear and beyond doubt that words or behaviour calculated to incite hatred on grounds of race, creed or colour, constitute an offence under the Act. An overwhelming case was also made out for increasing the penalties under Section 5 of the Public Order Act and, indeed, by this very Bill, the Home Secretary has himself recognised that such a case has been made out because, clearly, the events of last year made that manifest.
But what justification is there for including in this Bill offences under the Public Meeting Act, 1908? I remind the Committee that on Second Reading the learned Attorney-General said:
The heckler who goes too far, the man who is provoked to such an extent that he himself causes a disturbance, is…never charged under the 1908 Act. He is always charged, under the 1936 Act, of himself having used 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour' in such a way as to be likely to cause a breach of the peace"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1150.]
In the words of the Attorney-General himself, therefore, that case is provided for without the necessity of the inclusion in the Bill of any reference to the Public Meeting Act.
What, then, is the purpose of here putting in this reference to the 1908 Act? I suggest that it is as if it were a sop to the Fascists and other persons who, by their recent conduct, have made the Bill necessary. It is as if the Home Secretary were saying to the Fascists. "We will punish you, but you will have the satisfaction of knowing that those who attend the meetings and interrupt will be punished in exactly the same way." That is manifestly unjust. The right of public meeting is an important right, and should not be interfered with unless it is absolutely essential. It is esential with regard to Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and essential there, not as a breach in our right to free speech but in order to prevent the abuse of our right of free speech.
I would ask the Committee to look at this from a practical point of view. Suppose the Fascists proposed, as they have in the past, to hold a meeting at or near


my constituency—for example, at Ridley Road, a well-known place where they held meetings. It is a district where, hitherto, Gentiles, Jews and coloured people have lived in peace and harmony, with no suggestion of trouble of any kind. It is said to these people, "Keep away", but, inevitably, such a meeting provokes counter-demonstrations. People who suffered grievously—refugees and their relatives, and there are many of them who live in this district—who hate, and rightly hate, Fascism and all it stands for, will attend these meetings. They will not at such meetings allow such expressions as "Hitler was right".
Hitherto, when they have offended they have been adequately dealt with under Section 1 of the Public Meeting Act, and nobody has suggested that they should be dealt with otherwise. Indeed, if they have offended seriously at such a meeting, according to the Attorney-General's words they can be dealt with under the Public Order Act, with its increased penalties. But, with this present provision, there is the danger that for any offences they can be dealt with under this Bill, with its increased penalties, and that, I suggest, is manifestly unjust.
Both my local councils—the Hackney Borough Council and the Stoke Newington Borough Council—discussed the Bill very recently, and condemned very strongly the inclusion of Section 1 of the Act in this Bill. One of the councillors used these very strong words:
By presenting this Bill, the Government would strengthen the hands of the Fascists. It was not the preachers of racial hatred who were arrested. The majority of so-called offenders were innocent bystanders.
I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that the right of public meeting is of paramount importance, but it has never been recognised what an infringement of the right of free speech is the inclusion of offences under the Public Meeting Act of 1908. Many reforms have been greatly assisted by public meetings. People have the right to attend, to heckle, to express their views forcibly, even to dissent vigorously from the view expressed from the platform. Political meetings, especially, are important in this connection.
A weapon in the hands of the police is made much more formidable by reason of these increased penalties. The police

will be asked to say whether a heckler, forcibly or vigorously expressing a view differing from that coming from the platform, is trying in the words of the Section, to prevent
…the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called…
The policeman is the judge in the first instance because, under subsection 1(3) of the Public Meeting Act, 1908, if he reasonably suspects that any person has been committing such an offence he can, at the request of the chairman, require the person to give his name and address. If the person refuses, he is guilty of an offence, and the policeman can arrest him without a warrant—without a warrant—if he suspects that the person has given a false name and address.
If this provision remains in the Bill, the position will be that on the evidence of the police—and we know that a court of summary jurisdiction will be prone to accept that evidence—the person will be liable to a penalty on summary conviction of a fine of £100 or three months in gaol, or both, and, on indictment, to a fine of £500 or 12 months in gaol, or both. I stress that this is a real danger.
I remind the Committee that the Public Meeting Act, 1908, was a private Measure, introduced by Lord Robert Cecil. In Committee, it was said quite clearly that disorderly conduct was practised at public meetings in many parts of the country, and had been from immemorial time.
5.0 p.m.
"It was a form of sport which was as well recognised as football", a Member, a Mr. Radford, said. He added:
He was not prepared to say without a moment's notice that a man should be fined or imprisoned for doing that which they and their forefathers had done for generations.
He asked that the Measure should be deferred for twelve months.
Lord Robert Cecil, in reply, said:
The possible danger of hardship was really not very great. The penalty was only £5—after all, not a very severe penalty—or a month's imprisonment, and he did not think it was at all probable that any summary jurisdiction court would be at all over-severe in dealing with the matter. Where the prisoners said they were not aware of the Act, and were not evilly-disposed persons, and nothing was known against their character, the probability was that they would be let off with a caution the first time and very likely the second. He really thought they need not be afraid that the penalty would be unduly enforced.


It was a light Measure with no question of anything really severe in it.
When the Bill went to another place, the Earl of Donoughmore, in putting it forward, said:
The object of this Bill is to make disorderly conduct at a meeting for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting an offence. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind your Lordships of recent events. I think it will not be denied that during the last three or four years the general tone of behaviour at public meetings has been of a distinctly lively character, culminating in a great meeting in the Albert Hall some ten days ago which was described to me by an eye-witness as pandemonium, and which has given rise to a rumour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to address no more public meetings if anything in petticoats is allowed to form part of his audience. I do not know whether the rumour is true; but I cannot help sympathising with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the treatment he has had.
Lord Newton, speaking on the Bill, said:
The noble Earl has endeavoured to persuade us that nobody will be injured by the Bill; but I gather that any person who attends a meeting and shouts 'Votes for Women', 'Down with the House of Lords', or 'Your coal will cost you more', will be liable to a penalty of £5 or imprisonment for a month; and when the noble Earl talked about the necessity of safeguarding free speech I should like to point out that he is interfering with one of the most cherished privileges of the public It is an immemorial practice in the public life of this country to attend public meetings, not necessarily of one's friends, and the measure is such a startling departure from well-established national habits that I am disposed to suggest that, following the precedent to be established by another Bill which is before Parliament, it should be brought into operation by instalments. The most dangerous class ought to be dealt with first, and I would suggest, therefore, that in the first instance it should be applicable only to women, and at a subsequent stage it should be brought into operation in regard to adult males, and, at a still later stage, should apply to the rising generation.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has given us an enjoyable extract from a debate, but could we have your Ruling, Sir William? We have had a long reading from a speech made in another place. Is not this, strictly speaking, out of order?

The Chairman: The rule is that if an hon. Member refers to a speech of a previous Session made in another place he is perfectly in order.

Mr. Weitzman: I am much obliged to you, Sir William. I took the precaution of carefully ascertaining the position before I dared make those quotations.
I quoted the speeches because this was the way in which this Private Members' Measure was introduced in 1908. People then said that the Measure interfered with the right of free speech, but it was described as an innocuous Measure, the sort of Measure where there was only a penalty of £5 or a month's imprisonment and people need not worry too much about it. It was said, "If you have a case coming before the magistrate he will deal with it quietly. There is no great punishment." But the Government have now transformed this innocuous Measure into something in the same category as an offence under the Public Order Act. I suggest with great respect that this simply will not do.
It is unjust on the face of it and it is putting a. weapon in the hands of the police which can be used wrongly and vigorously against people who merely go along to meetings and who might not have intended to interrupt. If one adopts the view put forward, I suggest rightly, by the Attorney-General that we need not worry about the real offences under the 1908 Act, because they can be dealt with under the Public Order Act, why refer here to the Public Meeting Act? I suggest that this is an unjust provision and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Lord Balniel: I have listened with great care and interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I disagree with his conclusion, but I have a certain sympathy with his approach to the argument. The hon. and learned Member talked about the possibility of there being a danger that the Public Meeting Act, 1908, might be used to prosecute hecklers. I have a certain sympathy with his concern, because I agree with John Stuart Mill that the yardstick by which we should judge legislation is that when we grant power which could be abused we must always assume that it will be abused. He went on to say that whereas precautions will be stringently enforced to begin with


those precautions in time will inevitably be relaxed.
Whilst I agree with the hon. and learned Member's general approach, I am in disagreement with his argument. I was interested to hear that the Public Meeting Act was introduced by the late Lord Robert Cecil in 1908. The great-nephew of Lord Robert Cecil, namely, the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, welcomes this Amendment to the 1908 Bill. In the Amendment we are arguing about the balance we should strike between two different types of offences, both very different offences but both touching directly upon the maintenance of public order and the freedom of speech, both of which have been hard to win in this country. They must be treasured, and they are particularly precious to us because there are many pacts of the world where they do not exist.
In many respects the argument which revolves round the Amendment is the classic argument which is thrashed out by undergraduates through the night at Oxford and Cambridge—between those who contend that every legal rule should widen personal liberty and those who contend that every legal rule is inevitably an encroachment upon personal liberty. Clearly the Government in moving this Bill believe that the enforcement of penalties under the Public Meeting Act, far from restricting liberty, widen individual freedom.
Hon. Members opposite, in supporting the Amendment, have all the appearance of being little Tom Paines imagining that any Government of any kind is no more than a necessary evil, because obviously the elementary duty of any Government is the maintenance of public order at a public meeting. I cannot help feeling that some hon. Members imagine themselves as belonging to the great tradition of radicalism and riot; they imagine themselves taking part in rowdy, vigorous meetings of the Eatanswill type, forgetting, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did, that hecklers cannot be prosecuted under the Public Meetings Act, 1908. Forgetting that, they imagine themselves heckling at a lively vigorous meeting and being carted off by the police and subjected to a fine of £500 or 12 months' imprisonment. This is not the situation at all.
I can well understand the hon. and learned Gentleman disliking legal restrictions of any kind at a public meeting, but what we have been witnessing in the past few months at certain public meetings have, in fact, been restrictions on free speech imposed not by law but by mob violence. Restrictions on free speech imposed by mob violence are far more evil than the necessary evil of minimum restrictions imposed by a Government to maintain public order at public meetings.

Mr. Michael Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why such matters as mob violence, as he fears, cannot be dealt with under the Public Order Act?

Lord Balniel: Because the Public Meeting Act is specifically designed to deal with those people who act in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which a meeting was called. The Public Meeting Act is specifically designed to stop people attending a public meeting for the specific purpose of wilfully breaking it up.
It seems to me that in this Amendment we are deciding the balance which should be maintained for the penalties between two totally different types of offence, two types of offence which are inextricably interwoven. On the one hand, we have the penalties which are imposed for the offence of abusing freedom of speech, the use of insulting words deliberately to provoke public disorder. That offence is denned under Section 1 of the Public Order Act, 1936. On the other hand, we have the penalties imposed on those who wilfully break up a public meeting, who wilfully try to eliminate the right of free speech. That offence is defined under the Public Meeting Act, 1908.
The Government's contention is that these two different types of offence are of equal gravity and that the penalties should be similar. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, in moving his Amendment, is contending that one of these offences, namely, the abuse of free speech, should be punished by a penalty of £500 and possibly imprisonment of 12 months; but that the other offence of deliberately


and wilfully breaking up a public meeting and eliminating the right of free speech should be punished by a fine of £5 or one month's imprisonment.

Mr. M. Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman not reply to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) who quoted the Attorney-General on the subject? He quoted the Attorney-General as saying:
The heckler who goes too far, the man who is provoked to such an extent that he himself causes a disturbance, is, as far as I know, never charged under the 1908 Act. He is always charged, under the 1936 Act…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1150.]
The hon. Gentleman must answer that point.

Lord Balniel: The Public Order Act, 1936, is designed and can be used for the heckler who is provoked beyond all bearing and utters abusive and insulting words. He can be prosecuted under that Act. But the mob or gang which goes deliberately to break up a public meeting is liable to prosecution under the Public Meeting Act.

Mr. M. Foot: And the Public Order Act.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Balniel: And the Public Order Act, perhaps. I do not know. That is not necessarily so. People can break up a meeting not by using abusive words but by surging forward in an animal rush to the platform. It is for that kind of act that the Public Meeting Act is designed.
I really do not feel that the penalty of £5 provides a reasonable deterrent to the kind of people who attend these public meetings with the purpose of breaking them up. Also I do not think that is a reasonable backing for the police who have to handle these kinds of people. After all, these meetings are not Boy Scouts rallies. These meetings are deliberately disintegrated into vicious and nasty punch-ups, and the police must have the reasonable backing of the law behind them.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument of differentiating between these two penalties exemplifies a sense of values which I find very hard to understand. Of course, I share with every

hon. Member, and most certainly with the Mover of the Amendment, a sense of abhorrence and total contempt for those who abuse freedom of speech in order to incite hatred and fear. I despise these people who hurl abuse, epithets and insults at the audience in order to provoke disorder, and of course those people who play on the emotions of ordinary, decent men and women by vaunting the Nazi movement and all its squalid anti-semitic atmosphere. I have total contempt for that kind of conduct. But also and to no less a degree I feel a sense of contempt for those organisations which are trying to eliminate free speech altogether, those organisations which send in their thugs and their mentally-retarded rank and file wilfully and delibately to eliminate free speech and break up public meetings. These two offences, the abuse of free speech and the deliberate attempt to eliminate free speech by breaking up public meetings, are no more than different sides of the same coin.

Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that if a speaker on a platform says "Hitler was right" and a member of the audience, a refugee, is so incensed by that that he creates a disturbance, they both ought to be punished in the same way?

Lord Balniel: I feel the hon. and learned Gentleman must have totally failed to understand my argument. The heckler is not dealt with under the Public Meeting Act. 1908. I am talking about gangs of people who deliberately go to create a punch-up and eliminate the right of free speech.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those persons could not be dealt with under the 1936 Act?

Lord Balniel: Indeed, I am. I would be very surprised if they could be. The actions of these people do not necessarily constitute assault and they do not necessarily involve abusive language. It seems to me that the aim of these people who undertake these two types of offence is exactly the same. They both aim to destroy democratic government, to bring down public order and to eliminate the right of free speech. They want to establish in the place of democratic


government the Nazi system or the Fascist system or the Communist system of government. I cannot see the logic of claiming that those who provoke public disorder by abusive language should be punished to the extent of £500 or 12 months imprisonment or both, but that those who wilfully break up a public meeting, creating public disorder in that way and eliminating free speech, should be subjected only to a derisory punishment of £5.
Indeed, it seems to me that as we increase the penalties for offences under these Acts, it is when we seek to increase them under the Public Order Act that we should ponder longest and think deepest.
It is the Public Order Act, 1936, and not the Public Meeting Act, 1908, which trenches on our freedom of speech. Indeed, if one is forced to discriminate and give heavier penalties under one Act than under the other, I should have thought that there ought to be heavier penalties cm those who are trying to eliminate free speech rather than on those, in an educated society, who abuse free speech. In fact we do not have to choose between the two. I support the Government in, I hope, resisting this Amendment because these are both grave crimes which should be punished with equal severity.

Mr. M. Foot: I have listened extremely carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and, if there is any virtue in his argument, it seems to me to be that we can deal only with gangs who engage in mob violence trying to break up public meetings under the 1908 Act. If that is not the case, the whole of his argument falls to the ground. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman has argued, and I do not think that he can dissent from it.
The first answer to that is that if gangs who engage in mob violence have been dealt with under the 1908 Act. it is gross distortion of the purposes of Parliament, as revealed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, (Mr. Weitzman), that that Act was introduced in the first place, if, in fact, the only way in which we can prevent mobs from breaking up meetings of this character is by invoking the 1908 Act. This is a most curious state of affairs, because the Act of 1908 was introduced for a very

different purpose, and it has apparently been the only thing that has protected the State from violence during all these years. The noble Lord's proposition is an absurdity.
If he had listened to the Attorney-General, or to my hon. and learned Friend quoting the Attorney-General, he would have seen that in fact such exercises or displays of mob violence when they have occurred are not usually dealt with under the Public Meeting Act, 1908, but under the Public Order Act, or they maybe dealt with under normal Acts dealing with general breaches of the peace. The noble Lord has based the whole of his case and presented it to the Committee on the grounds that offences committed under the Public Meeting Act are equally grave with those that may be committed under the Public Order Act, and therefore it is quite proper to increase the penalties and go ahead as proposed by the Government. But that is not the case. It is not the Public Meeting Act that protects the nation and the public from the kind of offences which the hon. Gentleman objects to so strongly when he describes them as mob violence.
We are entitled to go back first to the origin of this Act which we are trying to exclude from the Government's proposals. My hon. and learned Friend gave a most interesting account of what was said when this Measure went through the House of Commons and the House of Lords in 1908. It is no use any hon. Member suggesting that this is a trivial matter. Acts of Parliament are supposed to carry out what this House of Commons and Parliament decide they ought to carry out. There is no doubt whatsoever that the 1908 Act was not regarded when it was introduced as a Measure of great importance. It was a minor Measure, introduced no doubt by a very eminent ancestor of the hon. Member for Hertford. That is one of his claims to fame. But the Bill itself was not very important. We also know that the ancestor of the hon. Member was very much opposed to the suffragettes, and apparently he introduced this Bill to have greater powers for dealing with them, but no one at the time regarded the Measure as one of any great importance.
There was no debate on its Second Reading in this House and, as has already


been indicated and underlined by my hon. and learned Friend, it was only got through the House because the hon. Member's eminent ancestor said to the House quite clearly, "You can be sure that the offences tried under this Act will be very trivial indeed; if indeed the Act is ever applied at all." I think that the hon. Member's ancestor must be groaning and turning in his grave at the thought that one of his descendants had come here to say that it is all right to have a penalty of £500 applied under the Act, which he introduced so innocently in 1908. But there is an even graver offence concerned with the history of the matter. The Government should have told us when the Bill was introduced what was the origin of placing this part in the Bill.
There is no public demand for an alteration in the Public Meetings Act, 1908. It had been hardly heard of. There was no public demand for it; no agitation for it. Therefore, when the Government came forward with the Bill and the Home Secretary took the precaution, as I think all of us will acknowledge, of trying to explain this Bill in considerable detail to the House, he should have explained the origin, and why he was resurrecting this Act to amend it. Either the Home Secretary knew the history of the matter and did not tell us, or he did not know the history. Either way he is caught. The Attorney-General is even more caught because he should have explained the history and said, "When we were ferreting around the legislation we came across this Act. Almost everyone had forgotten about it, but we thought that we would resurrect it and cram it into the Bill." Then we might have paid a little more attention to it on Second Reading.
I must confess that I have not discovered the background of what was the origin of this Act. The more one looks at it, the more I think it amounts almost to sharp practice that the Government should have sought to engraft an Amendment of the 1908 Act on to a Bill which purported to deal with problems that we were concerned with under the Public Order Bill and the Public Order Act, 1936, about which, of course, there had been a great agitation throughout the country about which there has been great discussion, and about which the Home Secretary himself had

said on numerous occasions was the matter that we were discussing. The Government said, "No, we are going to deal with the Public Meeting Act as well, and we are going to make the penalties as severe under that Act as under the Public Order Act."
The most astonishing thing—I doubt whether it has ever happened in British Parliamentary history before, but the Attorney-General may have brushed up his history a bit better for the Committee than for Second Reading—is that I doubt whether there has ever been a case where penalties under a Bill have been increased on the scale that the penalties under the Public Meeting Act are proposed to be increased under this Measure. It is a fantastic increase from £5 to £500. Therefore, we have to look at what is the appalling offence.
The hon. Member says that this Measure is required to deal with mob violence on a big scale which is just as big a danger to free speech as people from a platform using provocative language which will cause a breach of the peace. There are plenty of other laws under which mob violence can be dealt with. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think there is any doubt at all on that proposition. Our concern about the proposal that the Government have made, particularly in view of the origin of the Public Meeting Act, is that a proposal of the Government which purports to deal with dangerous mob violence can in fact be used for dealing with perfectly legitimate interruptions at public meetings. It is all very well for the noble Lord to shake his head and say that he does not think that will happen. His word is no guarantee; nor is the Government's for that matter.
We had a case the other day of the trial of people, brought before the magistrate, following the visit of the Greek Queen to this country. There were some disturbances. One woman was brought before Mr. Robey at Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court on Friday, 12th July. She was on a charge of wilfully disregarding the Commissioner's regulations. She pleaded not guilty and was remanded in custody until Friday the 12th when she changed her plea to guilty. In sentencing her to the maximum penalty of 40s., the magistrate, after listening to the defence


counsel s arguments, stated that she had only herself to blame and that Parliament was considering measures which would increase the penalties for this sort of offence.
5.30 p.m.
I think that was a most improper remark for the magistrate to have made from the bench. I do not think that magistrates have any business to discuss legislation which is going through the House. They should only have regard to legislation which has been passed by the House. For a magistrate in a court to make reference to legislation passing through the House, apparently for the purpose of indicating to the victim that the penalties might be very much more severe in other cases, was, I think, most improper, and I hope that the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is responsible for these matters, will see that a proper rebuke is administered in such a case.
I am not quite sure whether this refers to this part, to what would occur under the new Act, or to the other part which refers to the intensified penalties under the Public Order Act, but it was wrong for the magistrate to say so. If it refers to the magistrate's suspicion that what was passing through the House was a Measure which would intensify the penalties imposed in such circumstances, it indicates that magistrates will not have all the wise or intelligent views on how to administer the law that the noble Lord thinks they have.
It is quite possible for magistrates and for the police who are giving the evidence to strain the meaning of the 1908 Act and to use it not merely for suppressing mob violence but for interfering with the right of people to make demonstrations by making noises or by interrupting fairly considerably at a public meeting. Personally, I think that British public life would be very much poorer if all public meetings were held in silence and if people who did not like some of the things said were not able to voice their disapproval. In this House I have occasionally witnessed scenes in which the Minister, no doubt very properly, is howled down, but under this Act, as interpreted by the noble Lord, it would be an offence if that were done in the street outside.
There are occasions when it is appropriate for speakers to be howled down—I will go as far as that—and when a well-aimed tomato or a well matured egg should not be regarded as an entirely improper feature of the political scene. There are many occasions on which this is the only proper way in which someone can express adequately his opinion of a speaker. I speak as one who has been hit by a rotten egg. I have no objection to it. People are entitled to express themselves in that way if they feel very strongly about something. Therefore, there are many gradations that we need to protect.
I do not know how often hon. Members go to Hyde Park and listen to the meetings there. We make a great boast of what happens there to show how democratic we are in this country. In Hyde Park, everybody can say what they like from the platform. But the whole point about Hyde Park is that everyone else, too, can say what they like. The greatest exponent of the right of free speech in Hyde Park is Dr. Donald Soper. He encourages the heckler. He would not dream of having an Act to protect him in Hyde Park. Those who make speeches in Hyde Park must protect themselves by their wits. That is their business.
It is monstrous that we should interfere with the right of the heckler even if he expresses his views in very strong terms. Of course, I agree that if the heckling, the interruptions and the accumulation of eggs and tomatoes become so prodigious that the speaker is utterly prevented from making his point at all, that is a threat to free speech and has to be dealt with under the present law. But we do not need any change in the law to deal with that.
What is being proposed is to increase the penalties which may be imposed for offences far short of that. We are giving enormous powers to the police in the evidence which they give to the courts and also to the magistrates as to how they are going to exercise those powers. I have not the slightest confidence that all the police and all the magistrates are going to administer such laws properly. We know that they do not do anything of the sort. We know that in these matters the police and the magistrates show the greatest prejudice, and when they


hear a political opinion which they think unorthodox they show the greatest possible prejudice.
Therefore, it is the business of this House to protect people who want to express unorthodox opinions either from the platform or when addressed to the speaker on the platform. That is what we ought to be doing instead of this miserable business of increasing penal ties. When the Government do not explain to the House the purpose behind the proposal—

Sir Douglas Glover: On the question of increasing the penalties, the hon. Gentleman is very controversial. There are times when I would willingly pay £2 for having the opportunity of throwing a rotten egg at him, but if I had to pay £5 I would hesitate to do so. With the lowering in the value of money, to raise the penalties is to bring them more into line with present-day values.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman says he might have to pay £5 for doing that. I think that he should be allowed to do it for nothing, particularly as I have not much respect for his aim. The last time that I was almost hit by a rotten egg was when someone aimed it at me and hit my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and I was agreeable to the whole transaction. Indeed, when we went on those marches we tried to prevent violence. One of my hon. Friends who was with me said, "We must wait until we see the whites of their eggs". This is the way in which tempers are kept cool.
The idea that this sort of thing should be stopped by great legal machinery is nonsense. It is in defiance of our traditions. It so happens that most of the freedoms which we possess have been secured by riots. People do not like to know that, but that is true. The Reform Bill of 1832 was not passed through the House solely because of the activities of the Bristol Unionists Association. It was due to the rioters. The Chartists fought for most of the liberties which we now possess. The rioters have rights, too. We do not want it on a great scale, but occasionally it is the only way, and in those days it was the only way.
We should be extremely careful about imposing fresh penalties. Far from being

careful the Government have muddled up the whole thing. They have introduced into an amendment of the Public Order Bill something which should not have been there at all. Of course, we know why the Government have gone for the extra penalties in this haphazard, slapdash way. It was because they were not prepared to face the real issue with which the country was concerned, the issue of how we are to deal with the bestial offence of spreading racial hatred and discrimination. The Government were not prepared to tackle that, or face it. Either they quibbled and said it was all dealt with by the law anyhow, or they ran away from it.
I know that we are not going to be able to discuss that in Committee owing to the decisions made by the Government. It is utterly disreputable that the Government should have introduced the Bill and then taken steps to prevent us from discussing the matter in Committee. We invited the Attorney-General to give us the chance to do so, but he would not. I hope that the Committee, seeing the way the Government have dealt with this important matter, introducing a Bill purporting to deal with the subject but not dealing with it at all but, in fact, increasing the dangers of interfering with perfectly legitimate expressions of free speech, will adopt the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
I want the Committee to excise from the Bill altogether any reference to the Public Meeting Act. We shall then have the matter somewhat clearer and, no doubt, in the next Parliament, we can deal properly, in a quite different way, with the whole question of the spread of racial hatred and discrimination.
The more I look at what is proposed, and the more I look at the penalties, the more strongly do I plead with the Committee not to allow the Bill to go through in this form. What will be the end of it? We all know that the origin of the Bill was representations made to the Government from both sides of the House with a view to dealing with the subject of racial hatred and incitement. The Government said that they would examine the matter very carefully. They had to wait for all the cases in the courts to be dealt with. They examined them


with the utmost care and in detail, so they said. What do they propose now?—this hotch-potch of a Bill which jams together legislation on quite different subjects without dealing at all with the main matter which had aroused concern in the country and in the House.
The bets way to proceed is to improve as far as we can this miserable piece of legislation, and the best way of doing it is by reaffirming the purpose of the Public Meeting Act as stated by its author, the ancestor of the noble Lord, the Member for Hertford.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has told us that he has had experience of having rotten apples, eggs and other things thrown at him. I think that all of us have had, at the Marble Arch, the experience of being shouted down from our platforms. Usually, as a result, there is a very much better and larger meeting than there would be if there was no heckling. Hecklers can be extremely useful.
In my view, the Government are wielding a very heavy hand here. Not merely will these be the prescribed penalties for the speaker if he goes outside the terms of Section 5 of the 1936 Act, but the same type of penalties can be attached to the heckler who, when all is said and done, might have gone to the meeting not with the object of having some sport, not with the object referred to by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) of breaking up the meeting but with the genuine intention of defending his own honour, his prestige or his beliefs. This is a quite extraordinary view.
Looking back over the past few months, how did these questions arise? In the 55 years since the 1908 Act was put on the Statute Book, the police, for whom I have the greatest admiration, have been able to look after large public rallies and public meetings throughout the country very well, and, in fact, as the Attorney-General has rightly said, very little use has been made of the 1908 Act. Then, in 1936, it was necessary to have another Act of Parliament to deal with a number of things, processions and so forth. Just recently, of course, my hon. Friend the

Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) and I introduced a Bill, which, unfortunately has not become law, to deal with racial incitement. I appreciate that if I go further in discussing that Bill I shall be out of order, but I wish to draw attention again to the circumstances and events giving rise to it.
We had in this country a man named Jordan who said "Hitler was right". This caused a wave of resentment throughout the nation because many people could see the danger which might come to us unless there were suitable legislation on the Statute Book. When the question was raised in the House, no one talked about the 1908 Act, because, of course, that Act was not relevant. The point at issue related to the speaker at public meetings, not the audience.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has attended meetings from time to time at Dalston Junction. He will remember that I was his opponent as prospective candidate for his constituency at one time and I also went to such meetings and found out exactly what happened there. I suggest to my noble Friend the Member for Hertford that he should take the opportunity of seeing the sort of things that can occur nowadays. A man stands on the public platform and proclaims something which is extremely impertinent. Is someone in the audience simply to stand aside and just listen to it all? Let us remember that it will depend entirely upon when the police intervene whether the meeting is closed or not. Let us suppose that there is a timid policeman present who is reluctant to do anything about closing the meeting for some time. A lot can be said, and the offence is created.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that impertinence should be the criterion for closing a political meeting?

Mr. Skeet: Certainly not. Far from it. I was using a particularly soft word. At some of these public meetings, of course, there is nothing short of an outrage.
A man is looking after his own interests and trying to defend himself. He


creates a little commotion at a public meeting. Along with others, he is arrested. They are all taken to the police station and charged. The extraordinary result is that the speaker who makes the outrageous speech advocating racial incitement receives a certain penalty, and, at the same time, 15 or 20 hecklers, perhaps, receive penalties of much the same order, yet they have done nothing but try to defend themselves.

Lord Balniel: I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I have nothing but contempt for some of these speakers at public meetings. But is my hon. Friend really satisfied with the idea that a number of public meetings can be closed before the speaker can make any statements at all? Is that the kind of freedom of speech which he advocates?

Mr. Skeet: I know very well that my noble Friend is absolutely sincere in what he says and is opposed to anyone who tries to spread racial incitement in this country. But I ask him to consider this further matter. A little time ago I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department telling me that there was no power to ban a meeting in advance but that the police could close a meeting from the outset. I appreciate the point which my noble Friend makes. Nevertheless, what the law cannot do is stop an offensive document being circulated. When a leaflet was published saying that "Hitler was right", it was not possible to bring a prosecution on the document. The Attorney-General gave one or two answers off the cuff to the effect that these documents could be brought within the terms of Section 5 of the 1936 Act, but I very much doubt it. This is a point which should be examined extremely seriously.
We tend to become rather confused on this subject. On the one hand, there are people who go along to public meetings for sport to break them up and there are those who, out of sheer venom, want to break up public meetings. On the other hand, there are sincere people who go there to defend their rights. These are the people about whom I am concerned. They are the ones I want to protect. But let us not have these extremely stringent powers and heavy penalties in order to deal with them.
The Attorney-General said that the 1908 Act had been rarely used. But there were sufficient powers under the 1936 Act which could be invoked. My noble Friend said that there had been no restriction of liberty in freedom of speech and that our present law had not led to any diminution of that freedom of speech. I take that point, but I draw attention to the effect of the interpretation of the law by the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice said, in the principal case recently decided, that the
person must take his audience as he finds them, and if those words to that audience or that part of the audience are likely to provoke a breach of the peace, then the speaker is guilty of an offence".
There has been a very severe diminution of freedom of speech in this country as the result of the interpretation of the law given by the Judiciary in the major case coming before them recently.
I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the Committee. I hope that I have made my point. I revert to what I said on Second Reading. We have in the United Kingdom certain substantial minorities. They are picked on from time to time as scapegoats, and they are perfectly entitled to do what they can in their own defence. They seek to defend themselves at public meetings when certain persons use public meetings in order to provoke them and as a vehicle for outrage. It is quite wrong to suggest that the House of Commons should by this Bill visit on the people who do what they can to defend themselves the same penalties that can be imposed upon a man who is prepared to say on the public platform "Hitler was right".

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I think that the most important point which the Committee has to consider relates to one point made by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). He said that if he had to choose he would deal rather more severely with people who go to break up a meeting than with the speakers and organisers of a meeting who deliberately insult members of their audience and inflame and incite them to violence. The noble Lord revealed a good deal of his thinking by making this somewhat unnecessary point, because I take it that he rose to support what he supposed would be the Attorney-General's case.


I fear that he will find, when the Attorney-General speaks, if he is to speak, that he did not do very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
However, the noble Lord went beyond what he hoped the Government would do when he said that he would treat more severely people who went to break up a meeting than those who inflamed the audience to race hatred.

Lord Balniel: Of course, I have no idea what the Attorney-General will say. My reason for thinking in those terms was that the Public Order Act, 1936, trenches on freedom of speech, and there is no defence, apart from restrictions by law, against mob violence. But there is a defence against abuse of free speech, and the defence surely is an educated society.

Mr. Mendelson: The important point about the noble Lord's contribution in going beyond what was necessary for his purpose is that obviously he has had very little experience in recent years of what is going on at some of these meetings organised by those who propagate race hatred. This was clearly revealed, and it was also revealed by the fact that he concentrated entirely on anti-Semitic movements. But he must be aware that there are other groups, particularly coloured citizens, who are subjected to attempts at terrorisation at least as bad and sometimes worse than those directed at members of any of the religious minorities in this country.
As was said to the Home Secretary in the Second Reading debate, the aspect of terrorisation is the dividing mark between the approach which some of us have to this matter and the approach of the Home Secretary. The noble Lord confirmed that he has no clear appreciation of what goes on at these meetings, because terrorisation is something which he clearly abhors. I know enough about the views of the noble Lord to need no affirmation from him that he is against race hatred and that he has an enlightened liberal view on all these matters. But, precisely because he has this decent approach, it is clear confusion of thought of argue as if we were dealing, on the one hand, with people who are trying to inflame their audience to race hatred and to violence and, on the other hand, with organised mobs and

gangs of, as the noble Lord put it, educationally retarded people who go along deliberately to break up a meeting. That is a parody of the situation.
What we must face is an altogether different position, and the Attorney-General knows this quite well. We must face a position where there are several Fascist movements which deliberately organise campaigns of violence and campaigns of inciting people to violence. They pick a certain part of the city, as they did in the City of Sheffield, not very long ago. In this case it was Attercliffe, one of the working class districts of Sheffield, where a considerable number of coloured people had their homes. These were decent, hard-working folk who make their contribution to the life of the community by working in industry, on the buses and in hospitals.
Members of the Fascist movement do not call their meetings on public ground, outside the city, in the centre of it or in a major square. They deliberately decide to call their meetings where the coloured people live. They distribute handbills throughout the city, for a fortnight before the date of the proposed meeting, in which they publish the most indecent statements about the people whom they propose to attack in the demonstration, some of which I should not like to repeat even publicly in this House. They peddle the worst sort of lies, and hope to inflame the attitude of the people who come to the meeting.
As is well known and common ground, there are certain types of statement about people—in this case it was about a coloured minority—which themselves lead to violence and which are an incitement to violence because if one makes these statements in a handbill in advance and then holds the meeting in front of the houses where these people live, one is not only putting intolerable provocation on the people who have their homes there but one is also terrorising them.
This point would be immediately seen if a movement were to be set up in this country which decided to apply this treatment to other sections of the community. If a movement were created to mete out this sort of treatment to certain social sections many hon. Members who are now luke warm to this Amendment would be shouting for the Government to take action straight away. They would


argue that no section of the community identifiable in any way should be personally intimidated and terrorised. This is the nub of the argument.
The members of the Fascist Union movement to which I am alluding wanted to go to Attercliffe to terrorise the inhabitants. In their whispering propaganda in the fortnight preceding the proposed date of the demonstration they were passing the word along, not that they were going to Attercliffe for a peaceful demonstration, but that they were "going to show them", as they said. The idea and implication behind it was that they would terrorise the people to such an extent that some of them would pack their bags and go back to where they came from. That was the intention of the demonstration.
We are not dealing with an ordinary, innocent public meeting at which certain views are to be expressed and at which it is essential to protect the speakers so that they are free to express their point of view. I do not know whether the noble Lord assumed the mantle of Burke in his high-sounding sentences and phrases, but he charged those of us who support the Amendment as being little Tom Paines. That does not depress me at all, because I should not mind being a little Tom Paine. The man was great enough, even the little Tom Paines, not to be too badly off in his niche in history, as the noble Lord should know.
Whether we are little Tom Paines or not, the mistake which the noble Lord has made is a cardinal and historic one. It was made by the opponents of the great Tom Paine. They were confused as between the need, desirability and public importance of protecting free speech and the need to make it impossible to terrorise certain sections of the community and should not be regarded as a far worse offence than the interference with the speaker and his expressions of opinion.
What happened in this case in Sheffield was that the local people in Attercliffe decided to oppose the Fascist meeting. It might interest the noble Lord to know that they had a great deal of public support. A number of the local citizens got together and said, "We do not want the Fascists to demonstrate here. We have always lived peacefully with our

fellow citizens, no matter what their colour or religion. We do not want the Fascists." Two clergymen joined their ranks and helped them with an informal committee.
The local newspaper, the Sheffield Telegraph, was also very helpful. People were invited to make statements to the newspaper and a public opinion was created hostile to the attempt of the Fascist Union movement to hold a terrorising meeting in Attercliffe. As a result of many protests, the police banned the demonstration which the movement intended to hold through the streets. After the demonstration had been banned, the Fascist Union movement decided to give up the meeting in Attercliffe, because it felt by then that there was so much public opinion aroused against it that it would not do to go to Attercliffe and hold this terrorising meeting.
6.0 p.m.
Let us assume, however—and this is the case that the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary must meet—that the Fascist Union movement had not abandoned the meeting, but had decided to go to Attercliffe to hold it in front of the homes and houses of our coloured citizens and had successfully terrorised them. What should the people who live in those houses do? The demonstration which is directed against them is not being held somewhere in Hyde Park, where they do not have their homes. Nobody is obliged to go into Hyde Park. If somebody insults a person there, he may not like it but he can stay away.

Mr. Leo Abse: Why?

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend is quite right in interjecting "Why?" It would be important to make illegal, as we shall discuss under other Amendments, racial attacks whenever they may be uttered at a public meeting, but my hon. Friend must allow me to make my case in my own way and to put the point. There may be a strong general case. My example provides an even stronger case to meet this situation.
If a person does not want to go to a public meeting in Hyde Park, he can stay away, but if the Fascist Union movement decides to held the demonstration on his doorstep, if they come to his front door and to his window and utter the most despicable lies about him, not political


accusations or that he has a bad policy, but statements about his personal hygiene, cleanliness, and the like, if they shout that from the rooftops with the one and only aim of inciting the audience to violence against the coloured people, what are these coloured people to do?
I certainly suggest that if we found ourselves in this position and people came to our own front door, we would not keep quiet about it. We might even be provoked into some kind of action, because what is taking place is occurring in front of our own homes, and our homes have always been regarded as our castles. Many of these people may have modest homes and they live in conditions which are difficult enough. They are in a new environment. In many ways, some of their homes are well below standard. If they have made their entry into the community, if, as many of them have done successfully, they have been accepted by their neighbours, if they are happy about this acceptance, if they begin to be parts of the community, it is wrong for a deliberately organised and financed movement of hooligans to come along to their very doorstep and make up this propaganda against them.
The Home Secretary tells us that when either people themselves or other citizens of the area go outside and join the meeting to attack the speaker and are, perhaps, provoked into action against the platform and against the speaker, they should be met with the same severity of the law and the same severe penalties as those who deliberately were going to Attercliffe to poison the minds of people there and create violence. The absurdity of this proposition is obvious once one looks at it.
That brings me to my final point. When I stress so heavily that these people are being incited to violence at the meetings, I do so because I am convinced—and the Attorney-General should be convinced—that, where people engage in racial attacks, that kind of attack is completely different from the propagation of certain political and social ideas—not because the attack is more indecent; it is, but that is not the point I am on.
These attacks are of a different kind, because if a person is attacked for holding certain political beliefs he can change those beliefs, but if he is attacked because

of his racial origin he cannot change it or do anything about it. This is why I stress the point of inciting to violence. If a person argues that somebody is inherently evil because of his racial origin, he is insinuating into the minds of his audience a criminal intent, because the only solution to cure the evil is the physical destruction of the racial minority. This is the real reason, although there is no need to make comparisons between the incubation period of the National Socialist movement and the situation which we face now.
As I said with other hon. Members on Second Reading, we are not facing that kind of situation, but certainly there is this parallel. If somebody begins a racialist movement, eventually inspiring people to do acts of violence against the minority whom he denounces, because there is no other remedy the only way in which that can be cured is by being destroyed or driven out. Once we are dealing with such speeches and propaganda, we are dealing with a propaganda which is clearly of criminal intent.
That is why the Government should deal severely, as they have been asked to do, in their legislation and their administrative instructions with people who create such poisonous situations, who deliberately organise meetings for the purpose of terrorising peaceful citizens. They should accept our argument that there is no reason why, on the other hand, people who oppose such meetings should be treated with such rigorous severity in exactly the same way. There is a clear case for accepting the Amendment. I hope that the Government have had second thoughts and that we shall get from the Attorney-General a better explanation of the Government's position than we had on Second Reading.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not want to dwell too much on turns of phrase and choice of words, because I expect that between the rather sharp clash between proponents of one side or the other in this matter there is probably, nevertheless, the same objective of preserving the widest possible degree of freedom of speech which is consistent with public order. Nevertheless, I have been concerned, both on Second Reading and in the debate on the Amendment, at the phrases which have been used and at the


conception which some hon. Members appear to have of what constitutes incitement to disorder at a public meeting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) used only per incuriam the phrase "impertinence", but it is a little indicative of the attitude in which this matter has been approached that my hon. Friend could utter a sentence implying that a political meeting should be shut down on the grounds of impertinence,

Mr. Skeet: I did not say so.

Mr. Bell: May I finish?—impertinence and that those who go there to be the audience at the meeting are entitled to take the law into their own hands in such circumstances.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend either has not understood or has not listened to the whole of my speech. I agree that I used a soft word, but when I explained I thought that I made clear to the Committee precisely what I had in mind.

Mr. Bell: I agree that when I interrupted my hon. Friend he said that he used a soft word, and I took account of that in introducing my reference to him. I said that it was in a sense per incuriam that he used the phrase. Nevertheless, I repeat that it is a little significant that making allowance for that he nevertheless was able to say it at all without being shocked by the words as he said them.
A little later in his speech my hon. Friend referred to those who attend a meeting—we are discussing an Amendment about the conduct of an audience at a meeting—with the intention of causing disorder or who, when they get there, cause disorder. My hon. Friend described those people as going there to defend their rights. That, again, is a phrase which has rather shocked me.
Imagine that somebody holds a meeting and in the course of it he says, or was going to say, things with which other people strongly disagree. It does not matter which of them is right; he is saying things with which they disagree. How do people have to go there and be disorderly to defend their rights? It appears to me—

Mr. Weitzman: Mr. Weitzman rose—

Mr. Skeet: If pamphlets are distributed before a meeting and they say "Hitler was right" is not a man entitled to go along and say, "This seems to be a little outrageous"? He may go along to hear what is said and he may become incensed by what he hears and may start a commotion, but is he not entitled to appear at the meeting?

Mr. Weitzman: Mr. Weitzman rose—

Mr. Bell: I cannot give way to the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I cannot give way to everybody. I have given way rather freely to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East because I am referring to him.
I was drawing attention to the way in which these things have been said, because they are indicative of an attitude and a mood with which on this matter I simply cannot agree. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a justifiable or at any rate a venal thing for people to do. In fact he said, "What else can they do? ". He said that if they thought certain thing; were going to be said they should go along to the meeting to defend their rights. The point I want to make is that their rights in this matured and developed community are defended for them by the law, and that if they allowed those persons to say what they wanted to say their rights would be not in the least diminished.

Mr. Abse: Mr. Abse rose—

Mr. Bell: I really cannot give way. I think I should like a little bit of freedom of speech myself.
They might have to abstain from taking part in a controversy in which they were particularly interested. They may have to deprive themselves of some opportunity of influencing their fellow men by putting forward their own views at the time when contrary views are being advanced. That is a matter of importance to them. They may, indeed, wish to go to a meeting to ask questions and possibly indulge in that form of heckling which is rather like peaceful picketing—regarded as one of the pillars of the British Constitution, although where the boundary line lies is a very difficult thing to decide.
I think I can understand what my hon. Friend has said, but it is this phrase that I am catching on, "What else could they do?". What else could they do but go along to the meeting and defend their rights? That was the point made in the Second Reading debate and also made on this Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am following the hon. Member very carefully and up to a point I agree with him, but will he deal with this point? Does he not recognise the distinction between going to a meeting and having a meeting held on one's doorstep at which people deliberately say provocative things?

Mr. Bell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I happen to be rather on common ground with him because I have made it clear all the way through from the beginning of this controversy, and I made clear in my speech on Second Reading, and I have always taken the view, that when inflammatory things are said—say, in Trafalgar Square—or some places where the general public cannot help hearing them and which are incitement, different considerations come into play. Indeed, I urged my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works not to allow those meetings in Trafalgar Square. I would say in passing, in personal justification, that when I first suggested that it was met with a certain amount of ridicule from both sides of the House, but I am very glad that my right hon. Friend accepted the advice which I pressed upon him and has banned such meetings. I think that is right.
6.15 p.m.
In this Bill, however, we are not primarily concerned with demonstrations in public places. They capture the headlines, but let us not forget that 99 out of 100 of these gatherings to which the Bill would apply are meetings in private places, and I take the view that people who go to a meeting in a private place should behave when they get there, even though they very much dislike what they hear when they get there.
I should like to have the attention of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) because I want to refer to something he said on Second Reading and which I think is depressingly significant

for what we are considering now. He was speaking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and he said this:
Will the Attorney-General allege that if somebody thought it was necessary to advocate complete restriction of Commonwealth immigration, even though that were bound to lead to racial hatred, he should be entitled to advocate such a policy because of the cherished tradition of freedom of speech?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1933; Vol. 680, c. 1144.]
The hon. Member for Islington, East made it clear from the way he said it and by what followed that he regarded the proposition as quite ridiculous.
That is what worries me about the attitude in the speeches I have heard from many hon. Members, including, I am sorry to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East. Is it really to be argued in this Committee that if somebody honestly thinks that Commonwealth immigration should be altogether stopped—he could be wrong about that, but if he thinks it should be—not with just the licensing we have now but altogether stopped, and that if he says that at a public meeting he should expect to find the place in an uproar around his ears and that the people who break up the meeting would be merely defending their rights or stopping some act of public indecency?
That is very dangerous ground, and I beg hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee to think about it carefully. I understand the emotions which press them forward, but this is very dangerous ground. The hon. Member for Islington, East went further in the same speech. He asked, "Is somebody to be entitled to get up at a public meeting and ask for the deportation of Commonwealth immigrants? Is that sort of thing to be allowed?" My answer is, yes, it is to be allowed. Quite definitely. Provided, of course, that it is done in a way that is not insulting, abusive or threatening. [Interruption.] Those are the words of the Public Order Act. The hon. Gentleman and others with him have been suggesting that, quite irrespective of the conditions in the Public Order Act, that sort of thing in itself should be made an offence, and that if that sort of thing is done, we really cannot blame those present resorting to violence.
I think that this is a damnable, dangerous doctrine. I do not say that in any spirit of ill humour because, as I


say, I think everybody has been quite genuine about this in the debate, but listening to this debate I say that I think this is very dangerous stuff which has been said and that, if it were accepted, we should most bitterly regret such restrictions on our personal liberty and our personal right to express opinions. I think anybody expressing such opinions, and more extreme opinions than that, provided he expresses them in moderate language, is entitled to a quiet hearing. Otherwise we get the point of view that where some violence at a meeting is done it is even praised as a kind of public hygiene.
I am prepared to support the increase in penalties which is proposed in the Bill. I would have had a rather different view if the Amendment had been moved slightly to reduce them, but the fact is that this Amendment is very different from that and it says, "No, leave them alone. Do not touch them." That, in the current atmosphere, I find an utterly untenable argument.

Mr. Fletcher: I wish briefly to summarise the argument why I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Before doing so, may I deal with the observation made by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)? He referred to something which I said on Second Reading and said that I had gone too far in suggesting that there should be certain limitations on' freedom of speech. I am as fervent a believer in freedom of speech as he is, and if he looks again at what I said on Second Reading he will find that I was putting a number of questions to the Attorney-General in order to elicit from him the ground on which the Government were resisting the demands from this side of the House that the advocacy of racial hatred per se should be made an offence and written into the Bill.
If the hon. Member looks at column 1152 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that, as I had been unable to get a specific reply from the Attorney-General, when the Attorney-General was speaking I intervened and asked:
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that one ought to be able to advocate racial hatred provided that in doing so it does not lead to a breach of the peace?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
No. I am not saying that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1152–53]
I gather from what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South said that he would give a different answer.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member cannot slide away like that. I am referring to what he is reported as having said in column 1144, which I read faithfully. He was asking rhetorical questions of the character, "Can a leopard change its spots?" He was clearly implying what I said in my speech. He said:
Is that the argument? I will assume for the moment that it is not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1144.]
There is no doubt that he was implying both there and in the other passage that a person ought not to be at liberty at public meetings to advocate either the total cessation of Commonwealth immigration or the deportation of immigrants.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member obviously has not understood the point. I was asking rhetorical questions and trying to ascertain whether the Government's reasons for resisting our Amendments was either that they were undesirable or that they were unnecessary. I was putting a number of questions directed to that end.
What emerges clearly is that the Attorney-General, presumably speaking on behalf of the Government, expressed a different view from that of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. The Attorney-General said definitely that he does not think that one ought to be able to advocate racial hatred even if in doing so it does not lead to a breach of the peace. I prefer to leave it there, because we have had a long debate and, with great respect to the hon. Member, this is outside the relatively narrow ambit of the Amendment.
I should like, therefore, shortly to summarise the reasons why I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept the Amendment. It is obvious from all the speeches on both sides of the Committee that in any Measure dealing with freedom of speech or the freedom of public meetings or public order, or any suggested limitation on our cherished


liberties, we should be most circumspect in what we are doing. We are saying that it is quite unnecessary, and wrong and repulsive, of the Government to have introduced into the Bill the Public Meeting Act, 1908.
The speeches illustrated how careful the House must be, in legislating in matters affecting freedom of speech, to ensure that Bills introduced for one purpose are not abused and exercised for another purpose.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: And without any opportunity on the part of the House to amend the original Act. There is great constitutional objection to what is being done.

Mr. Fletcher: Any matter which entrenches on the liberty of the individual and freedom of speech or rights of public meetings raises great constitutional issues. I do not want to repeal what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), but the Committee must bear in mind the very special circumstances in which the Act of 1908 was introduced. There was no debate whatever on Second Reading. It was a Private Member's Bill, introduced by Lord Robert Cecil without a word of explanation. It was only when it got to the House of Lords—an unreformed House of Lords—that one learned what it did.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Is the hon. Member suggesting that in some way Statutes which were passed before the House of Lords was reformed are not as effective and valid Statutes as any others?

Mr. Fletcher: I was not making any comment on the historical fact which I was noting.
But it is obvious, as was said in the other place, that the Bill was introduced because it was said to be urgently required for the protection of Members of the House of Commons, especially of members of His Majesty's Government. Under its terms it was limited to public meetings and political meetings preliminary to a General Election. If one looks at the Act, it is seen that it is not only an offence to act in a disorderly manner at a lawful public meeting but

if the public meeting relates to a Parliamentary election, then the offender is guilty of an illegal practice.
It is not surprising that when it came to the Committee stage Mr. Radford, who was then the Member for East Islington, a constituency which even then was imbued with liberalising ideas, drew attention to the fact—he was the only one to do so—that it appeared to be a very serious inroad into rights and freedoms, which the country had enjoyed from time immemorial, of interrupting and heckling at public meetings.
Mr. Radford was put off by being told that it was very unlikely that anyone would ever be charged under the Bill, or that, even if he were, he would probably get off with a caution on the first offence and would very likely get off with a caution on the second offence.
It appeared in the House of Lords that the reason for the Bill was that at a meeting at the Albert Hall, Mr. Lloyd George, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been interrupted and a hullabaloo had broken out at his public meeting. It was said that Mr. Lloyd George would not go to any more public meetings if anybody in petticoats were allowed to form part of the audience. There we have a Bill designed for the limited purpose of protecting Mr. Lloyd George from the irritating antics of people in petticoats at public meetings, and it is now being used by this Government, with savagely increased penalties, for a totally different purpose.
What has emerged most clearly from the debate is that while there was a very limited purpose for which the Act was passed, the Attorney-General in referring to it, as he did at some length on Second Reading, gave a totally different interpretation to the scope of that Act from that of its promoters and those who passed it in 1908 and, as far as I know, from that of all the other Law Officers who have ever had to administer the Act.
Not content with saying that it was a very minor matter of very limited scope, with a negligible penalty, the Attorney-General has now said that the 1908 Act was far more serious in its operation than the 1936 Act. The 1936 Act was seriously debated in both


Houses and was a Government Measure. Every Clause was carefully looked at. I am sure that nobody in 1936, when as far as I recall the 1908 Measure was not noticed, thought that in passing the 1936 Act he was passing an Act of much less importance than the 1908 Act.
6.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General, on Second Reading, said:
The heckler who goes too far, the man who is provoked to such an extent that he himself causes a disturbance, is, as far as I know, never charged under the 1908 Act.
Later, he said:
The gentleman who merely behaves in a somewhat outrageous way, including using insulting behaviour calculated to cause a breach of the peace, is not guilty of an offence under the 1908 Act. He has to go much further than that—to the extent of acting in a disorderly manner for the very purpose of preventing the transaction of the business…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1150–1.]
So the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the prosecution has a much heavier onus of proof under the 1908 Act than it has under the 1936 Act. But, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, in 1963 we are dealing with a totally different situation. We are not dealing with what goes on at political meetings. People are free to go into public meetings if they want to, whether in Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park Corner, or elsewhere. But a situation has arisen in which it is important to preserve a distinction between places at which public meetings are held. That is bound up with the whole question of freedom of speech.
There are places where one can say what one likes—for example, in this House and at public meetings in Hyde Park. But there are other places where one cannot say exactly what one likes without incurring the risk of inciting people to disorder, and very often by deliberately provoking a breach of the peace. I give an example divorced from the events we have been discussing.
I have heard a great many anti-Papist speeches in Hyde Park, where people are quite free to discuss the Pope, the Roman Catholic religion and all its works. I imagine that no one likely to be offended by such remarks would go there of his own volition. But if a similar meeting

were organised outside the precincts of Westminster Cathedral, with the deliberate object of putting forward these views, that would be something, I imagine, that people would not be entitled to do, or would be less entitled to do, and it could not be assumed that they did it for any other purpose than that of inciting disorder and provoking disturbance and breach of the peace, since people in that vicinity would quite naturally be provoked and disturbances would arise.
Therefore, there cannot be the same rights of freedom of speech in one place as in another. That seems to be the basis of the distinction which should be observed. This year, we are dealing with a situation in which Fascist bands are not content with advocating Fascist doctrines in places where either no harm can be done or where people are not likely to be provoked, or even likely to attend—or if they do choose to attend cannot have any legitimate complaint.
We are dealing with a situation in which Fascist bands deliberately organise meetings in places where they are most likely to provoke disorder, to arouse passion, to cause disturbances, because those places have large Semitic or coloured populations. These are places like Ridley Road and one of the roads in my constituency. This is done not so much for the purpose of putting forward views which they could put forward as much as they liked in Hyde Park, but with the deliberate intention of inciting racial hatred leading to provocation, knowing that disorder must follow.
What we say is that, in this situation, it is monstrous for the Government to propose the same penalties for those who organise these meetings as for those who are naturally provoked at them. It is no use hon. Members opposite saying that people are free to go 10 meetings or absent themselves. These meetings are held on their doorsteps. That is the reason we object to the introduction of these savage penalties under the 1908 Act on people who will inevitably be provoked by those who organise these meetings.
The object of the Bill is to increase the penalties against those who organise provocative meetings likely to cause breaches of the peace, and there can be no possible justification for increasing in any way the penalties under the 1908 Act.
The Home Secretary has recognised that the 1936 Act is sufficient to deal with people, members of an audience, who deliberately cause a breach of the peace. It hits both at the organisers of the meetings and those who unreasonably break up meetings. Therefore, there can be no necessity, on the Home Secretary's own argument, for introducing into the Bill any reference to the 1908 Act.
These are the reasons, at this limited point, why, when all has been said about freedom of speech and public order, when one realises that there cannot be any real freedom of speech unless public order is preserved, and when the current problem is to increase the penalties against those who deliberately stir up racial hatred, there cannot be any justification for increasing the penalties under an Act introduced fifty-five years ago by a private Member for a purely limited purpose and which has no relation or relevance whatever to the present situation.

Sir Barnett Janner: We have heard very interesting and important arguments which I shall not repeat because they were effectively made. It is alarming that we can so calmly talk about two distinct matters in precisely the same way as though they were of equal importance and significance.
The Committee might consider the enormous difference, in true perspective, between the two offences, and realise that we cannot treat this as a minor matter, for we must take into account the fact that the Bill was introduced for the specific purpose of stopping people from advocating a crime which is acknowledged to be a crime not only by the average person but by the United Nations.
How can we discuss sanctions in respect of these two matters in the same terms? It is inconceivable after what we have seen and what we know to have occurred and what we know is being advocated by those whom it was intended to stop from that kind of advocacy by the Bill. How can we compare it, so far as sanctions are concerned, with the trivial offence of a person going to a meeting, being incited and expressing himself in the usual manner? It is sheer nonsense.
How many times has the 1908 Act been invoked? How often have the maximum penalties been imposed? How many times have offences at meetings been treated as offences under the 1908 Act, and how many times as entirely different offences? If there is an assault at a meeting, one charges the person with assault. If there is assault intended to do bodily harm, one charges the person concerned with intent to do bodily harm. If a policeman is stopped in the execution of his duty, that is an offence of its own. There are sufficient penalties to cover all these offences.
With regard to the offence about which we have been talking—going to a meeting for the purpose of stopping it—Section 1 of the 1908 Act says:
Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together shall be guilty of an offence".
It does not matter whether he went there with the best of intentions and was provoked, or whether he arranged to go there for that purpose. If the second case can be proved, there are other ways of dealing with it. There is conspiracy. There is legislation which deals with riotous gatherings. But the Measure—no wonder people spoke about it in the way they did when it was introduced—is not intended to deal with that kind of thing at all.
I gather that we are not likely to get the Government round to our point of view on this Amendment. We may have to discuss it again on another Amendment, and I shall then take the opportunity of referring to detailed points. The Government must understand that the image here is wrong. Do not the Government realise that by bringing in this Measure with a provision dealing with the 1908 Act they are telling the public that they regard people who incite to crime at meetings in the same way as those who go to ordinary meetings in order to heckle? Even more important, it indicates to the courts that they have to treat this crime, if crime it be, in the same way as incitement to genocide or something of that nature in the general sphere of human relations.
6.45 p.m.
I do not understand it. I know that the Joint Under-Secretary understands and has sympathy with our point of view. I


do not know why he will not come our way. Perhaps he has been prompted from a higher source. I urge him and the Attorney-General to say that it is not necessary to increase this penalty because the Measure does not deal with the kind of problem which we have in mind. It has already been explained that the Measure should deal with something entirely different. The result is that the postion has been put in the wrong perspective.
I hope that we shall be told the reason for the Government's attitude. It seems inexplicable that they should drag this paltry thing into a Bill which deals with something tremendously important, something which involves world problems—where our name has been vilified, where organisations who are advocating racial hatred are sending their circulars into Germany under their own names and saying that the British people are advocating this kind of thing. That is a world problem. It is an important issue.
This should not increase penalties on the poor fellow who walks into a meeting, perhaps being an ex-Service man and perhaps of the Jewish persuasion, and finds somebody saying things which no self-respecting person could listen to without being incited into action. I appeal to the Government to see the matter in its right light and to deal with it accordingly.

Mr. Bowen: I find myself in sympathy with the Amendment. I have only two points to make at this stage of the debate. First, it seems to me that the only basis on which one could justify the increases proposed in the Bill in relation to the 1908 Act is that serious disturbances may occur in public meetings, which cannot be dealt with under the 1936 Act, and that these disturbances will be dealt with under the 1908 Act.
Accepting that for a moment, I think it might well be argued that the existing penalties under the 1908 Act are inadequate, but that is on the basis that the Act will be invoked for the purposes of dealing with serious disturbances and behaviour which might call for a penalty of 12 months' imprisonment and £500 fine and which cannot be dealt with under the 1936 Act. If that argument is not sound, there seems no real basis for alter-

ing the penalties as proposed in the Bill in relation to the 1908 Act. But I do not accept that proposition, and I shall deal with it shortly in a moment.
Even if that proposition were sound, it seems to me that the way it is proposed to deal with the matter in the Bill as it stands is open to very strong objection on constitutional grounds. The reason why I say that is that it is quite clear from what we have heard in this debate that it was never envisaged that the 1908 Act would be invoked for the purposes which it is now suggested it should be invoked. If that were in mind, apart from what we have heard, it is inconceivable that the penalties in that Act would have been what they are, £5 or one month. I hope that we shall be given information on this. So far as I know the 1908 Act has never been invoked for the purpose of dealing with serious misconduct. That Act is now to be invoked for a purpose for which it was not originally intended and, in order to make it a suitable instrument to be invoked for these new circumstances, the penalties have to be increased.
It is open to the very strongest constitutional objection to change the whole purpose for which an Act of Parliament is to be used by changing the penalties. That is particularly so because this House has not been given any opportunity for considering whether the 1908 Act is ripe for amendment in its general object. If, for example, the Government take the view that they want powers outside the 1936 Act to deal with general disturbances at meetings, surely the proper course is not to increase the penalties under the 1908 Act but to introduce a Bill to deal with the situation not covered by the 1936 Act with appropriate penalties and to give the House an opportunity of considering the whole matter on its merits. This is a back door method of changing the whole purposes of an Act of Parliament simply by increasing the penalties. It is open to serious constitutional objection on those grounds.
I revert to my original point. It seems extremely difficult to envisage any behaviour at a public meeting of a serious character which would not give rise to an offence under Section 5 of the 1936 Act and say that it could not be dealt with by invoking Acts other


than the 1908 or the 1936 Act. It seems difficult—I do not say it is impossible, but difficult—to envisage circumstances which would be outside Section 5 of the 1936 Act in respect of which it would be necessary to invoke the 1908 Act.
Section 5 deals with threatening behaviour, abusive behaviour, insulting behaviour. It is extremely difficult to think of behaviour at a meeting, which breaks up the meeting and interferes with the business of the meeting, which would not involve some threatening conduct on the part of the person who indulged in it. The other element in the Section—intent to provoke a breach of the peace—would inevitably be covered if a person sought to interfere with the business of the meeting. Nothing would be more likely to create a breach of the peace than an attempt to wreck the purpose for which the meeting was being held.
If the Government think that they need powers outside Section 5 of the 1936 Act, the proper way to provide them is not to increase the penalties under the 1908 Act but to bring in a new Bill setting out the powers required and what the Government think are appropriate circumstances in which they should be used.

Mr. Abse: I regret that the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who treated us earlier to an academic exercise, is not now with us. I felt that his resuscitation of the memory of a misogynist ancestor as an example of concern on the part of those who provided laws in the past with democracy was considerably inept. The 1908 Act seems to have been largely intended to make quite certain that people should not spread democracy to include rights for women. We now have a Bill before us which seems equally determined to place severe restrictions on democratic rights.

Sir K. Pickthorn: The hon. Member has got it all wrong. Lord Robert Cecil was one of the great champions of votes for women.

Mr. Abse: If the hon. Member had heard the debate—

Sir K. Pickthorn: I heard every word.

Mr. Abse: I think that the hon. Member did not understand that that

Bill was to prevent anyone in petticoats getting anywhere near Mr. Lloyd George.
I find it singularly unfortunate that a Bill which has become an antidemocratic Bill should have arisen out of an understandable and justifiable agitation which came from minority groups, particularly from the Jewish community. I am well aware that unless there is a democratic feeling and spirit in the land a minority group such as the Jews, as we know from long experience, is always threatened.
When I see a Bill brought in deliberately for reasons, still inexplicable, and reasons we are not permitted by the rules of order to mention—racial incitement—but which seems to be dealing in some obscure way with that problem, used to prevent legitimate heckling, I become disquietened.
It has been suggested in speeches today that it is not very important if people say certain things, provided that they do not say them within the hearing or presence or proximity of groups who may be severely affected or moved by what is said. I do not hold that view. I think that if an anti-democratic exposition is made anywhere in this land we not only have rights, but duties as democrats to make it abundantly clear that we oppose such a point of view.
It seems to have been suggested in some quarters that there is something wrong in accepting an invitation to a public meeting. A public meeting invites people to attend. If people are preaching racial obscenities in Hyde Park or in the East End of London and we are really determined to protect our democracy, we have every right to respond to the invitation and to show, within the limits of the law, our objection to the obscenities which may be poured out, whether it be in Hyde Park or in the East End.
There is something radically wrong if we are trying to create a Measure which, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) attempted to imply, would ensure that the law would look after our democratic rights. It is not for the police to look after our democratic rights, but for each and every one of us as individuals to do so. We know the reason why this Bill was introduced. It was to contain and deal with obscenities


coming from Fascist and neo-Fascist organisations. Yet there is a Clause which specifically says that people who go to a meeting and offend against an Act designed for a limited purpose, which was very narrowly construed at the time and intended to be so construed, they can be put into prison for twelve months. What a great measure to protect democratic rights! Is it believed that the police can be effective arbiters in that situation?
Hon. Members should look at the wording of the 1936 Act and the 1908 Act. They should ask themselves whether it can be expected that any policeman who came to the conclusion that what he heard at the meeting was material which was offensive and offending against the Act, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting words, or behaviour likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Could a policeman, or any of us, distinguish that and what is said in the 1908 Act from anyone acting in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of a meeting?
7.0 p.m.
Do the Government expect a policeman to distinguish between heckling, an offence under Section 5, and conduct likely to result in the meeting being completely broken up? None of us would like to be given such a task. It is totally unreasonable to expect a policeman to make such a distinction at a disorderly meeting, with all the excitement and with all the provocations and insults which are hurled about. The policeman will have only one desire. He will want a quiet meeting with no trouble. That is understandable, but it is not what should be the right course of action for democrats at such meetings. They may want to raise their voices. They may want to make the traditional use of heckling. They may want to protest against what is being said.
Everyone at such meetings is faced with the possibility that the police will take him before a court. Under the encouragement—indeed, the incitement—of the Bill, the police are far more likely to plump for the more serious offence. If the same set of facts could sustain a conviction on either one or two offences, is it not likely—indeed, is it not often the practice—that the police or the prosecut-

ing solicitor will lay the charge on the more serious offence?
I am deeply concerned that what we have is not a victory for democrats. Unless the Amendment is accepted, it will be a victory for Fascists, As a result of their activities and their incitements, we are placing a severe restriction upon heckling. Where is the evidence justifying such a radical change in the law? The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) is right in saying that, if such a major change in the law is needed, instead of trying to impose a heavy penalty under an Act designed for another purpose the Government should tell us that there are mobs who are in danger of breaking up our political life and that there are gangs organising to wreck our political meetings and parliamentary democracy. Then we could test that. I do not believe that any such thing exists. My view is that there are people who believe that, whenever racial incitement is spread, their duty as democrats is to go to such meetings and protest.
On Second Reading, I said that, speaking as a Jew, I understood the history of my people in dealing with this problem. Acquiescence and silence have always led to extermination. Fighting against our troubles has led to the battles of the Ghetto in Warsaw and to the creation of Israel. The Jews have learned from their experiences that they must fight against these things. I believe that every democrat has learned in the same way. Do we want to induce an atmosphere into this country under which, because of the inhibitions of a fumbling democracy, we behave as they did in pre-war Germany? If we allow the Nazis to go on elaborating their theme, it will be an example of a government fumbling in exactly the same way as the democratic Weimar Republic.
This provision is offensive. It is aimed at people who believe in democracy and believe that they have a right and duty to go to meetings where racial obscenities are being preached, as they should go, in my view. If I learned that racial incitement and obscenities were being preached at the corner of my street which would be directed at stirring up hatred against my children, I would regard it as my duty to be at the meeting protesting. It would not be my duty not to go to the meeting or, if I went there, to run


away from it. That is the way to allow these obscenities to grow and eventually to engulf democracies.
The Clause as it stands completely misses the historical situation and completely misunderstands the explosive character of racialism. Because of its misunderstanding, it treats interruptions at meetings on the same level as if they were offences of genocide. This is a most disturbing situation. It is unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I represent a section of the City of Manchester into which since the war there has been a steady influx of Commonwealth immigrants. As with other constituencies, there has been such an influx that in some of our schools no less than one in four of the children are children of immigrant parents from various parts of the Commonwealth. I am happy to say that in Manchester we have had no real tensions or disturbances in the community. Unfortunately, this is not true of other areas. The one and only case that occurred in Manchester when there was an explosion was as a result of a provocative march of Fascists through parts of my constituency. The Committee knows the attitude that the Fascists adopt now, as they did before the war, to racial minorities. At the time I did not understand—I still do not understand—why the chief constable, who I understand has powers to direct where marchers should go, did not direct these Fascists to some less explosive part of the city. If marchers of this type went to certain parts of Manchester which I can think of, however deplorable the objectives of the marchers the consequences would be far less dangerous to public order than their being allowed to go through parts of the city where there is a heavy concentration of Jewish citizens or Commonwealth immigrants.
However, in the event they went through my constituency and parts of neighbouring constituencies. In consequence, there was a row. There were fights in the streets. There was uproar. A number of Manchester citizens were arrested, brought before the court and convicted. They were not Fascists. They were people who were outraged by the Fascists, people who under the provisions

of the Bill would be liable to very severe penalties.
I have heard most of the speeches. I heard the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) refer to people who demonstrate against this offensive propaganda—I appreciate that the noble Lord regards the propaganda as being offensive—as being educationally retarded. He described people who seek to break up such meetings as being educationally retarded. It is hard on our fellow citizens who attend a meeting addressed by Fascists to describe them—

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not refer to people who merely attend such meetings. I recollect my words very well. The hon. Gentleman can look them up in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. I referred to organisations which sent in their thugs. I referred to such things as the mentally retarded rank and file. I was referring to the Communist, neo-Nazi and Fascist organisations who send in their gangs to break up these meetings. I was not in any way referring to the ordinary mass of the public who attend such meetings.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept that at once, although I thought that the noble Lord had said something different. If I misunderstood him, I apologise. Even if they are not organised by Communists or other such bodies, is it surprising that people should react in a violent way when one considers that many of them lost relatives in gas chambers during the war or lost their homes and possessions as a result of the activities of the Nazis?
I am therefore concerned to see that people not only have the right to say what they like but that those who demonstrate against something which they regard as offensive should not be subjected to the punitive measures proposed in the Bill. After all, the Bill was introduced following the representations of many hon. Members to protect the community against the offensive consequences of meetings in Trafalgar Square and demonstrations in Manchester and elsewhere. It is the view of many hon. Members that the Government should not introduce a Bill which inflicts punitive measures on hecklers or which retards free speech.
We need legislation of the sort proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)—a Measure to make it specifically against the law to preach racial propaganda of the kind described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) as genocide. The present Bill leads many of us to suspect that it does not meet the demands that have been made by hon. Members, while slipped into it is a provision which imposes punitive punishments on hecklers at public meetings against remarks made from the platform.
We have heard about people being sent in gangs to break up meetings and that the provision is necessary to give reasonable backing to the police. I have experience of taking part in demonstrations against Fascism, although it is 30 years since I took part in such a demonstration in London against the then British Union of Fascists. On reflection, I think that some of the demonstrations against the Blackshirts in the thirties were ill-conceived because we were hitting at the wrong people. The people who were then the danger to the safety of this country were not the Fascists but the people in power in this House—those who had no difficulty in persuading the electorate to return them to power, namely, the Conservative Governments of 1931 and 1935.
I know enough of what happened in those years to know that it is awfully easy for a policeman, in the heat of the moment when he is trying to control angry crowds, not only to make a mistake from the point of view of arresting someone but also in seeking to get a conviction and to allege against the demonstrator words and actions which are not strictly in accord with the truth. It is possible to say about the provoked and angry demonstrator that he sought to lead others into action against the meeting, perhaps a meeting of Facists. I say these things having had personal experience of these matters.
That being so, such an individual, provoked beyond endurance by racial propaganda, might find himself charged, convicted on indictment and imprisoned for a period not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding £500, or both. This is an absolutely monstrous thing to include in a Bill of this kind. I am glad

that the Amendment will be forced to a Division and I hope that all hon. Members will support it.

7.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): The effect of the Amendment is to delete the reference to Section 1 of the Public Meeting Act, 1908, from the operative part of the Bill and, therefore, to leave the increased penalties applying only to Section 5 of the Public Order Act. As the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. weitzman) said in introducing it, the Amendment would not in any other way affect the 1908 Act. It would not repeal that Measure, which would remain on the Statute Book.
I will, as far as I can, deal with the many points which have been sensibly and eloquently argued on both sides of the Committee, particularly by hon. Members opposite. Before doing so, I will refer briefly, not in any spirit of controversy, to the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) about the Bill being suddenly used for an Amendment of the 1908 Act. It is fair to put on record that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his statement in November last year, included the 1908 and the 1936 Acts as Measures under which the penalties were to be increased. The hon. Member for Islington, East is entitled to object to the matter in substance, but this was not suddenly done when the Bill was published.
I entirely appreciate—and some hon. Members have acknowledged that they knew that I would—the motive which underlies the Amendment. Its purpose is to draw a clear distinction between offences under the Public Meeting Act, 1908, and those under the Public Order Act, 1936, as being of unequal gravity. I hope that that is a fair summary of the motive underlying the Amendment. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) will confirm that when this matter was first raised in an Adjournment debate a year ago I said at that time that this was a problem which had scarcely been out of my mind in the 16 days I had been at the Home Office. Now that I have been in that Department for about one year and 16


days I can repeat in all seriousness that this is a problem which I have had to live with and discuss continually with my colleagues in the hope of clearing our minds and reaching a solution in which the House would be prepared to acquiesce, if not all hon. Members would unanimously approve.
I should indeed sympathise wholeheartedly with the motive underlying the Amendment if I thought that there were any danger of what hon. Members opposite fear might happen actually happening. However, I believe that it rests on a misunderstanding which I would like to clear up, even if it takes a while to do so. Hon. Members fear that two kinds of offenders of unequal culpability—and I recognise that they would be of unequal culpability—should be equally severely punished; in other words, those who use a public platform to abuse free speech—in ways which have been movingly described by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Grffiths), the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and almost all hon. Members who have spoken, for this is common ground—and those who yield to provocation and commit violence against the abusers of free speech.
As I have understood hon. Members the presupposition is that there is a danger that these two types of offenders are liable to be prosecuted respectively under the different Acts with which we are concerned; the provoker under the 1936 Act, and the provoked under the 1908 Act. I think that I am almost echoing the words of the hon. Member for Islington, East in drawing that distinction.
I entirely agree that their offences are unequal, and I have every sympathy with the picture drawn by hon. Members of what might happen at meetings of the Fascist kind—indeed, one of them I witnessed myself in Trafalgar Square last year—but I would ask them to understand that rest of their presupposition is misconceived, since this is not the distinction between offences to which the distinction between the two Acts corresponds. The offence which the 1908 Act sets apart from other offences is not that of the provoked as against the provoker, but that of the deliberate, unprovoked breaker-up or preventer of meetings. In

this, my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) is quite right.

Mr. Weitzman: How can the hon. Member possibly say that the offence is something deliberate and unprovoked? In Section 1 of the 1908 Act there is no question of it being deliberate and unprovoked. Anyone at the meeting who may be held to have caused a disturbance and have intended to prevent the business being carried on is guilty of the offence. That must depend on the evidence. In other words, if a person interrupts a meeting, the police may arrest him and endeavour to show that by his conduct he tried to prevent the business being transacted. It is not a question of its being unprovoked.

Mr. Woodhouse: I think that the hon. and learned Member is mistaken in his understanding of the words used and, perhaps, if I pursue the argument a little further, he may see my point.
What I am stressing is that the 1908 Act is not directed against the heckler, or the man who yields to provocation. That, I think, was made abundantly clear in the Second Reading debate. It is not, indeed, directed against believers in democracy, as the hon. Member for Pontypool said. In contrast to him, I do not believe that it is difficult for the police to distinguish between the heckler and the man who sets about to prevent the meeting from transacting its business. I shall come back to the subject of hecklers in a moment—

Mr. Abse: The Under-Secretary is under the belief that what has been stated in the Bill about the Public Meeting Act, 1908—thatit is conduct designed to break up a public meeting—is, in fact, what is in the Act, and I am sure that it was also the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North. It does not say that in the Act—it states it quite differently—and the magistrates will look at that Act, and not at something that is an explanation within the Bill.

Mr. Woodhouse: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but the phrase that the courts will have to interpret is
…acting in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business…
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said, that places a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution.
The fact is that the 1908 Act never has been used, and never would be used, against people provoked to violence by a speaker because, of course, if it were so used a conviction would not be obtained. That Act was intended to be used against those who go to a meeting with the intention of preventing the business being transacted. That is perfectly clear from the words of the Act. It is, therefore, a protection of free speech and not an infringement of it, as my noble Friend the Member for Hertford said.
At this point I want to deal with the argument put forward by several speakers, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and the hon. Member for Islington, East, that the 1908 Act had, so to speak, been pulled out of the drawer and dusted off for this occasion, having been virtually a dead letter in the meantime. That is not true. The history of the 1908 Act did not come to an end in 1908. It was amended by the 1936 Act. If hon. Members will look at Section 6 of the 1936 Act, they will find that it is an amendment of and an addition to the 1908 Act—

Mr. Weitzman: But it was amended only with regard to the one small point of a constable arresting someone without a warrant—that is all. It is subsection (3).

Mr. Woodhouse: I take the hon. and learned Member's point, and I think that he will see mine if he will let me go on further. There is also the fact, though I readily concede that this is a very small point, that the 1908 Act was also amended in 1949 by the Representation of the People Act. I mention these points just to show that the 1908 Act has not been forgotten for the last 55 years.
When it was amended in 1936, its effect was considered more generally, and not only in relation to the particular small new subsection that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North says was added at that time. It was considered more carefully, and the then Home Secretary said during the Report stage of the Public Order Bill:

I think it will have to be a plain case and a severe case to justify a prosecution under the 1908 Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1936; Vol. 318, c. 1761.]
That has been the position since that time.
The 1908 Act has been rather seldom invoked—as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has said. I have been able to trace only four occasions since 1956 when it has been invoked—

Sir B. Janner: Then why does the hon. Gentleman want to increase the penalties?

Mr. Woodhouse: I will come to that, if the hon. Member will allow me to take things in my own order. I have made a note of his point, and I am coming to it in what I hope he will see is the logical order of my speech.
As I have said, the Act has been used only four times since 1956—and not at all in the disturbances of 1962. Hon. Members may be interested to know that in the case of the disturbances at the Jordan meeting on 1st July, 1962, 17 out of the 22 charges were brought under the 1936 Act, and none under the 1908 Act. In the case of the very different disturbances at the Mosley meeting on 22nd July, 1962—the difference is, I think, perfectly familiar to those who have studied the subject closely—23 out of the 60 cases were brought under the 1936 Act, though I think that many witnesses might have been inclined to think that in the disturbances on 22nd July there was a deliberate intention to break up the meeting.
I think that these are sufficient indications that the 1908 Act has been used, and would be used, only rarely and exceptionally. This is not surprising, for the reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General stressed in the Second Reading debate; that the 1908 Act does place a very heavy burden of proof on the prosecution. I can reassure the many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths), who are afraid that the 1908 Act might be used against heckling, and are naturally very anxious to safeguard the rights of hecklers—as, indeed, I think we all are. I share the opinion expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that most speeches are improved


by heckling. But the Attorney-General said in that debate—and I will not repeat his words in col. 1149—that we need not worry about this.
7.30 p.m.
If I may elaborate the point, to be caught under the 1908 Act heckling would have to amount to something very much more severe than what we normally understand by heckling today. One has only to bear in mind the ordinary connotation of the word "heckling" and compare it with the words
…acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together…
to see that these things differ totally and that any attempt to use the Act to inhibit heckling would be bound to fail in the courts. Something far beyond the ordinary bounds would be required. Neither the 1936 Act nor the 1908 Act has been used against heckling, and neither is now being amended in substance to make it possible to use it against heckling in a way in which it has not been used before.
I understand that an Amendment referring to heckling is likely to be out of order. It seems to the Government superfluous to add words to say that no act which has not an offence already shall be made an offence by this Bill. There seems to be no necessity to establish a statutory recognition of the right to heckle, which I am sure every hon. Member and the country generally recognise.
The point was made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, and it was underlined by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan, that as very little use has been made of the 1908 Act it might be judged superfluous on that count to increase the penalties under it and that this might be used as an argument for accepting the Amendment, as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West in fact used it. But the grounds for introducing the Bill were that although the powers were sufficient in substance and were adequately defined, the penalties were insufficient and the teeth needed sharpening. It therefore seemed to the Government right, since they were concerned with legislation on public order, to take account of both Acts which deal with public order and to sharpen all the teeth.

Mr. Weitzman: As the hon. Gentleman has said, far more serious offences

are dealt with under the Public Order Act. We are amending that Act anyhow by increasing the penalties. If the offences under the Public Meeting Act, 1908, are only very light—to a certain extent only heckling in the ordinary way—why is it necessary to add these words to the Bill?

Mr. Woodhouse: It is not a matter of more serious and less serious offences in these two Acts. They are just different offences—although there can be serious and less serious offences within the same Act—and it is a question of balancing them together.
Another point in the minds of hon. Members is that it would seem to them that there are no more grounds in 1963 for assimilating the penalties under the two Acts than there were in 1936. There are two arguments to meet that argument. The first is the point which I have just made in reply to an intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, that although the maxima under the two Acts will be the same, because in the Government's view the denial and abuse of free speech in extreme cases are equally culpable, there is no reason why a court should impose the same penalties in all cases.
The court takes account of circumstances and character. One has only to read the record of the courts after the major disturbances in Trafalgar Square in July last year to see that this is what happens and that the penalties imposed within the maxima are by no means equal for different offences.

Mr. Mendelson: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that a decision now to increase penalties so severely will be regarded as a direction to the courts to treat them as equal? Is the hon. Gentleman not undoing the sentence which he has just uttered from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Woodhouse: No, I do not think that that is so. All we are telling the courts is the maxima which they may impose. Many hon. Members know from their experience in the past that courts are very chary of imposing maximum penalties. I see no reason for the distrust of the courts which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and others have expressed. If we are going to distrust the courts we cannot pass any legislation


at all. The interpretation of legislation must rest with the courts and must always remain with them.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if Parliament increases a maximum penalty from £5 to £500 the courts are not inclined to think that the offence is more serious?

Mr. Woodhouse: They would certainly be inclined to regard the worst offences as more serious, but no offence of this kind has been brought before the courts under the 1908 Act and therefore this comparison cannot be made.
The other answer to the question why there is no more reason in 1963 than there was in 1936 to assimilate penalties under the two Acts is that if the 1936 penalties alone were increased the gap between the penalties under the two Acts would become not only larger but of a totally different order from what they are today. This would be even more emphasised by the fact that in that case the 1908 offences would continue to remain triable only as summary offences whereas the 1936 offences would also be triable on indictment.
There is a last point on which I should like to answer the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North. I speak subject to correction and I will study his words in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I believe that he spoke of the danger not only to those whom I have called the provoked being prosecuted under the 1908 Act but even innocent bystanders. I think that on reflection the hon. and learned Member may think that it is a very unlikely contingency and that if it occurred the likelihood of such a prosecution being successful can be regarded as negligible.

Mr. Weitzman: I quoted something which was said by a councillor in a local council who referred to innocent bystanders. The relevance was that often one would have an innocent bystander who was provoked and was arrested and charged under the Act.

Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. and learned Member is perfectly right. I recall now that he was quoting a local councillor and I am glad to have been corrected. The fact remains that there is a heavy burden of proof under the 1908 Act and

I do not think that we can take seriously the possibility of an innocent bystander being prosecuted under it.
It is perfectly natural with a Bill of virtually one Clause that the debate in Committee should repeat the ground covered on Second Reading, and to me it has been something of a relief to find that no unexpected arguments have been addressed to the Government Front Bench today. It has been even a slight surprise to me that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has not sought to improve my speech by heckling me. On the ground that in extreme cases—and it is for the courts to judge extreme cases—the offence of abusing free speech and the offence of deliberately denying free speech are in our opinion equally culpable I would hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Mendelson: Why has the Joint Under-Secretary failed to deal with the important case which has arisen in the past, and which might arise again, of the Fascist Union movement deliberately organising a meeting on the doorstep of a minority in order to terrorise it? If these people have a fortnight's notice and prepare themselves to do something about it to show their opposition, how will the Measure deal with that sort of case?

Mr. Woodhouse: I thank the hon. Member for reminding me of that point. The important consideration is not where the meeting takes place but what is the behaviour at the meeting. In the hypothetical, and indeed actual, instance which he describes there is a clear case of an offence under the 1936 Act.

Mr. M. Foot: Since the Joint Under-Secretary invited me to heckle him in order to improve his speech, I would not like to be ungracious enough not to do so. What difficulties does he think the Government would encounter in maintaining law and order if they were to accept our Amendment?

Mr. Woodhouse: I think if there were any possibility—and we cannot rule out this possibility—of a repetition this year or in future years of some of the Trafalgar Square meetings which took place last year, the Clause that we are now discussing would be of great value.

Mr. Foot: If that is the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical answer, I must say that I cannot think that my intervention has improved his speech. If that is his answer, that he wants to deal with the possibility of a recurrence of these kinds of Trafalgar Square meetings, why does he think that sort of case could be properly dealt with under a Measure which was introduced in 1908 for dealing with an entirely different purpose altogether?

Mr. Woodhouse: I have already pointed out that it is untrue to imagine that the Bill has had no history since 1908.

Mr. Fletcher: I think all hon. Members on this side of the Committee will agree that the Minister's speech was thoroughly unconvincing and unsatisfactory. The last two questions from my hon. Friend have exposed the weakness of the Government's case, and I hope my hon. Friends will support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and myself in the Lobby.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "of" in line 8, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 162.

Division No. 180.]
AYES
[7.42 p.m.


Aitken, Sir William
Gammans, Lady
Marten, Neil


Allason, James
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Arbuthnot John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mawby, Ray


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Balniel, Lord
Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Barber, Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton


Barlow, Sir John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bidgood, John C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, sir Charles


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Box, Donald
Hay, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Brewis, John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brooks, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hendry, Forbes
Peel, John


Brooman-White, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Buliard, Denys
Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, Sir James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pott, Percivall


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Channon, H. P. G.
Jennings, J. C.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cole, Norman
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kitson, Timothy
Robson Brown, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leavey, J. A.
Roots, William


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
St. Clair, M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sharples, Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M,
Longbottom, Charles
Shaw, M.


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Speir, Rupert


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, J. A.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaren, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricla
Storey, Sir Samuel


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley R.
Talbot, John E.


Finlay, Graeme
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Freeth, Denzil
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Galbraitn, Hon. T. G. D.
Maitland, Sir John
Temple, John M.




Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wise, A. R.


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Woodhouse, C. M.


Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Walder, David
Woollam, John


Turner, Colin
Walker, Peter



Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Hugh Reesand




Mr. Ian Fraser.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Paton, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gunter, Ray
Pavitt, Laurence


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, William
Popplewell, Ernest


Barnett, Guy
Harper, Joseph
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Hayman, F. H.
Redhead, E. C.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Rhodes, H.


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boardman, H.
Hooson, H. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, Edward


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, A. E.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Small, William


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Snow, Julian


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crosland, Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Swain, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taverne, D.


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
Lubbock, Eric
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dodds, Norman
McBride, N.
Thornton, Ernest


Edelman, Maurice
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt, Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Warbey, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McInnes, James
Watkins, Tudor


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Weitzman, David


Finch, Harold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Eric
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Foley, Maurice
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Frederick


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Monslow, Walter
Winterbottom, R. E.


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, B. K.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Parker, John
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after "1", to insert "(1)".
This is an Amendment to make clear the effect of the Bill on the Public Meeting Act, 1908, and to remove a misunderstanding which, I think, was expressed by one or two hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member far Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), on Second Reading, when it was suggested that the

Bill would have the effect of increasing penalties under Clause 1(3) of the 1908 Act as well as under Clause 1(1) of the 1908 Act; in other words, that a severe penalty might be imposed not only for the serious offence of preventing a meeting from taking place but also on a person refusing in certain defined circumstances to give a name and address.
The Government's view is that there is a conceivable ambiguity here. Clause


1(2) of the present Bill expressly repeals the existing penalty under Clause 1(1) of the 1908 Act, but makes no reference to a penalty under Clause 1(3) of the 1908 Act, and the existing penalty of 40s. under Clause 1(3) of the 1908 Act would remain. However, lest there should be any possibility of ambiguity from the bare reference in line 8 unqualified, we considered it preferable to add "(1)" after Clause 1 to make the intention and the effect indisputable.

Mr. Fletcher: In supporting the Amendment, we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) for having pointed out the ambiguity in the Bill and to the Minister for having made the necessary correction.

Mr. Weitzman: I should like to congratulate the Government on their extraordinary restraint in not increasing the penalties under this subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir B. Janner: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end to insert:
in the case of an offence under the Public Order Act 1936".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment we might consider the Amendment in page 1, line 15 at the end to insert:
or, in the case of an offence under the Public Meeting Act 1908, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, or imprisonment not exceeding 1 month".

Sir B. Janner: May I say how disappointed I was to hear the nature of the reply from the Minister to the debate which took place on the first Amendment. I thought that he might have taken note of the point that I was trying to make in respect of the image that his intentions were creating in the minds of the community as a whole and in particular in the minds of the judges or the magistrates. If he has not yet got my point, he must forgive me if I take a little time trying to explain why some of my hon. Friends and I feel so strongly about this.
As a preliminary I ought to say that the Amendment that I am proposing was not put on the Notice Paper because I did not feel strongly about the previous Amendment. In spite of the fact that the 1908 Act has no teeth, the hon.

Gentleman said that he was sharpening its teeth. It has been on the Statute Book for over fifty years and it is only just beginning to teeth, accordingly to him, and I doubt whether the teeth will ever come through at all.
The Minister is entitled to raise the penalties only so far as necessary to conform with the value of the £ and perhaps a little over. Therefore, I have chosen the figure of £50 in the hope that that may stir him into the belief that that will meet fully the case that he has been trying to present to us. As for imprisonment, there is no difference in value today—a month's imprisonment is a month's imprisonment, and that is that. Therefore, I am not suggesting that we should increase the term of imprisonment.
Let us consider what the Minister and his colleagues are trying to do. They are trying to equate an offence under what I shall call the petticoat act with a riotous, vicious and intolerable action which is being taken by people who are following in the footsteps of their master, Hitler. If there were a Preamble to this Bill, how would it have read? Would it have read that whereas the Public Meeting Act, 1908, has failed in its objects and in consequence has not been able to deal with the position which has arisen in which higher penalties were necessary, and therefore the penalties would have to be increased? Nothing of the sort. There have been four cases. It is illogical because how can one possibly ask a sensible set of legislators to legislate for something that has been proved to be not at all necessary? The argument is that, because there have been three or four cases in three or four years—is that it?—or is it in fifty years—

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodhouse: Since 1956.

Sir B. Janner: Four cases in seven years. So we must take a sledgehammer to deal with it. It really is not logical. We should only introduce fresh legislation to cope with a situation which is not being properly met by the laws at present in force. That is the way to do it. I simply cannot understand the Government's argument, and, to be frank, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really understands it himself. I cannot believe that a sensible


person like him can possibly find a reason for what he proposes.
There was a reason for introducing the Bill. But what the Minister is now saying is that we should have the same sanctions for murder, manslaughter, assault and grevious bodily harm, it being for the courts to decide how heavy a penalty to inflict. This is nonsense. We have different maximum penalties for different offences, and the court takes note of these in what penalties it imposes. In fact, it says so. In many cases, the Judge may warn a jury that, because of the severity of the penalty, it must be extremely careful to be 100 per cent. satisfied that the offence has been committed.
What the Government now propose is an indication to the courts and to the country that the two offences are of precisely the same seriousness. This cannot be tolerated. There is a very great difference between them. Imperfectly, I know, but doing my best, I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman a reason why he should reconsider his decision and accept this Amendment at least.
Either the two offences are of the same seriousness, in which case we should impose the same maximum penalty, or a mistake has been made in not increasing the penalty for the very serious offence. In the latter event if he likes, he can leave the penalty for the other offence, although I am convinced that it would be a ridiculous penalty to impose. But he does not suggest this.
In the Second Reading debate in another place, the Lord Chancellor said:
We dislike incitement to racial hatred just as much as anyone else, but the position now is this. As a result of the appeal, which held that the conviction was wrongly quashed, it is, I think, as clear as it can be made under the law of today that anybody who incites racial hatred is using threatening, abusive or insulting words; and, indeed, I find it impossible to envisage words used at a public meeting which really incite hatred of any racial group which are not also at the same time threatening, abusive or insulting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th June, 1963; Vol. 250, c. 1406.]
In other words, what the Lord Chancellor said lays down that the Act of 1936 covers, whether we say it in terms

in the Bill or not—we have asked dozens of times that it should be clearly stated—incitement to racial hatred because the words of the Act cannot be otherwise interpreted if the words used incite racial hatred.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That was one of its purposes.

Sir B. Janner: That was its purpose. Why am I so upset by the line taken by the Government? On 9th July, the Attorney-General said that we are dealing with wrong-headed expressions of opinion. We are not just dealing with wrong-headed expressions of opinion. We are dealing with a cold, calculated and deliberate attempt to destroy all fundamental human rights. This is why the Bill was introduced. The same methods and the same objects are being pursued as in the early days of the Nazi movement.
Then, too, provocative speeches by the Nazis were regarded as merely crackpot expressions of opinion. In our lifetime, we have seen what these crackpot expressions of opinion lead to. They led to the subjugation of Germany and almost the whole of Europe, with all the attendant massacres and brutality. I do not say that the same sort of thing will happen here, but this is the kind of policy which is being advocated by a movement which calls itself a political movement but which, as many of us have said, is not a political movement. It is a movement which encourages Nazi crimes.
If we are seeking to put a slight curb on the abuse of freedom of speech, we do it in order not to weaken but to protect this right which neo-Nazis, having abused it for their own ends, would then trample underfoot, together with all other human rights. Other Western nations have found it quite compatible with their respect for freedom of speech to incorporate in their legislation laws against incitement to racial hatred, as we have done and as we are trying to do now.
Such laws would be fully in accord with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of which states that
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.


In its conclusion, by Article 30, the Declaration provides that
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
We did not subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lightly. I refer to it because I want the Minister to realise that this is what the Bill deals with, apart from the side issue. The other matter is de minimis. The real purpose of the Bill is to deal with incitement to racial hatred, and we should not disregard its implications in the present situation.
This country is, and should continue to be, a leader in these matters as a rule. Our moral strength is our greatest weapon in the defence of the free world. We are not talking today about trivialities. We are talking about activities of the kind which I have described, and this I cannot emphasise too strongly. Our present law is not in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It does not afford the protection advocated by Articles 7 and 12. Protection is offered only when the incitement and attacks lead to a breach of the peace, or they are considered likely to do so.
This is bad enough in itself. As a result, law abidance is penalised. The peaceful citizen who, with the utmost self-discipline, manages to prevent himself retaliating at Vile threats and insults to himself and to his kith and kin is the sufferer. He is expected to acquiesce in the name of one right, freedom of speech, in the face not only of insults but of oral and written advocacy of a policy which would destroy all the other fundamental rights set out in the Declaration, a policy advocating not only discrimination but all that went with Hitlerism—concentration camps, gas chambers, the deliberate murder of children and babies, paganism and the destruction of all that is holy to Christian and Jew alike.
If certain individuals lack this tremendous self restraint and find themselves unprotected from the law from the utmost insult and provocation, it is surely inequitable that they should be penalised as severely as the persons whose deliberate provocation has led to retaliation.
I appeal to the Minister to see this matter in the light in which we see it. During his trial, Eichmann said—and this is the kind of policy being advocated—
The commandant told me he had liquidated by gassing 80,000 Jews, mostly from the Warsaw Ghetto, in three months.
Describing a visit to Minsk in 1942, Eichmann said:
When I arrived exterminations were in full swing. I saw a baby shot in his mother's arms.
This is the kind of thing that we are talking about. We are discussing the destruction of synagogues and sacred books. This took place on an organised scale in the pogroms in 1938 in Germany and Austria.
Special destruction was carried out on the Arks of the Covenant and the Holy Scrolls within them which were set on fire and desecrated. This was highly organised and by no means spontaneous temporary policy. After the fires had burned themselves out, conducted tours were organised to admire the damage done, and fees were collected for those tours on behalf of Nazi funds. Documents to which I have referred previously are being sent from Germany to this country and messages which are being stuck on the walls in Germany come from an organisation in this country which in themselves are an intolerable insult to everybody in this country.
People are advocating the destruction of books which contain the Ten Commandments. I could quote from the Nazi policy the advocating of pagan rites which are part and parcel of the same thing. Yet we sit here and say that the same penalty should be imposed on these people that is imposed on a person who does not agree with what is being said at a meeting. The Minister is wrong in what he says about the 1908 Act. It refers to people who are actually at a meeting. There is no provision dealing with people who conspire together to go to a meeting for the purpose of upsetting it. I should like the Attorney-General to deal with that point. The Act refers to a person who is at a meeting, but who acts in a certain way.
What does the Minister expect from a person with a tattoo on his arm which he got in a concentration camp and who has had to wander through the woods leading a subhuman life for years and


who comes back here and hears the same kind of thing in an enlightened country? Those of us on the Jewish Board of Deputies, which is the official representative body of the Jewish people in this country, have told our people not to go to these meetings. For years, before the great attack was made in Trafalgar Square, we managed to do that to a certain extent.
But we cannot stop people from going to these meetings. How can we? Who can blame people for going to these meetings? They want to be there to be able to answer what is said. They do not want others to go away with the impression that everything that has been said is right. This is an attack on the mind. It is worse than a brutal attack on the body.
It is ridiculous to put these people in the same position as those who incite people to racial hatred. This is almost like saying that we should lay down the same maximum penalty for every criminal offence on the Statute Book and to leave it to the courts to decide what punishment they will impose. That would be sheer nonsense, and I am sure that no one would be more anxious to attack such an idea than the Attorney-General.
I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Do not let us pass a Bill which, when it becomes an Act, may be interpreted by people, if only by a few people, as meaning that we regard these two offences as being of the same standard. The 1908 Act has been in existence for over fifty years. In seven years, four summonses have been taken out under it. It does not serve much purpose. How can it? I do not know how many summonses were taken out last year. There could not have been very many if only four have been taken out over seven years.
8.15 p.m.
I should not like the Minister to go away bearing the burden of allowing a triviality to impede something which is of tremendous value to the country. This is an important issue and I hope that in the circumstances he will say, "It would be quite wrong to impose the same penalty". If he thinks that there are some cases which might be a little more serious, let him lay down a penalty of £50, but do not let us give anyone the

impression that these two offences are of the same gravity.

Mr. Woodhouse: The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the penalties prescribed in the Bill to Section 5 of the Public Order Act alone and, additionally, to provide a separate increase of the maximum penalty for offences under Section 1(1) of the Public Meeting Act, 1908, this separate increase being only on the fine and not on the prison sentence. I hope that I have correctly defined the effect of the Amendment. It would still leave a wide gap between the 1936 and 1908 Acts, although not as wide as that proposed in the previous Amendment. It would, incidentally, also remove from the Bill, although leaving the 1908 Act in the Bill, the right of a magistrate to decide under the 1908 Act that the accused should be commited for trial on indictment.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) said very eloquently that this was an important issue. He also said that he was disappointed in my reaction to the previous Amendment. I am sorry that he was disappointed. Unfortunately, I am also disappointed in the hon. Member, because I could not find in his speech on this Amendment any ground for accepting it which would not also have been ground for accepting the earlier Amendment. I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating the arguments which I put forward in considering the previous Amendment, but I stress again the essential point that this Amendment also rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of the distinction between the 1908 and 1936 Acts.
I recognise that I have not carried the other side of the Committee with me in my arguments on this subject on the previous Amendment, but it would not be profitable to rehearse them all over again, because even on reflection I cannot see any ground for withdrawing them. If, therefore, as I urged with the former Amendment, it is the fact, as the Government believe it to be, that in extreme cases—and I am speaking only of extreme cases—the offence of denying legitimate free speech and the offence of abusing free speech are equally serious, the penalties should be the same. For this reason, it is not possible for the Government to accept the Amendment and I hope that it will not be pressed.

Mr. John Hynd: I am surprised at the Joint Under-Secretary's answer. I can only assume that he has instructions to accept no Amendments. It is difficult to imagine that anyone could be convinced by his argument. I have no political feelings in the matter. I am between the two sides of the Committee. I have listened to the argument on the present Amendment and the previous one. When the Minister argues that because the previous one was rejected there is, therefore, no case for this one, I do not follow him. The previous Amendment tried to eliminate the reference to the 1908 Act for the strong reasons put forward by several of my hon. Friends. The Government rejected the Amendment and they carried the day.
The argument still remains, however, that we are dealing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) said, with two quite distinct offences, which are dealt with in two quite distinct Acts, one of which—the 1908 Act—imposed minor penalties for the minor offences. The Joint Undersecretary says that the offences under the two Acts are equally serious. That makes nonsense of the 1908 Act and the penalties therein specified and of the fact that only four cases have arisen under it in the last seven years and have been dealt with summarily and satisfactorily, presumably, on the basis of the £5 fine or a month's imprisonment.
In the circumstances, for the Minister to say that that Act and the offences which it defines, for which such small penalties were laid down, must be treated as in the same category as those dealt with by the 1936 Act, passes my comprehension. I do not want to underline what already has been said by my hon. Friend in dealing with the almost inconceivable results to which offences such as are supposed to be covered by the 1936 Act can lead. Enough has been said about this, and the Government side know it as well as we do. Therefore, we must regard the two kinds of offences as entirely different.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), who spoke on the last Amendment from the Front Bench, in regard to the distinction that should be made about the place where a meeting is held at which one of these offences is committed.

There is something traditional about Hyde Park meetings, but if a meeting is held there at which incitement to genocide or its equivalent is advocated, I cannot see that anyone is less likely to be offended than if he happens to hear the speech if it is made at a street corner or in a public hall. It would be difficult to carry forward the distinction.
It does not matter whether it is Hyde Park or Finsbury Park, Battersea Park or a street corner with an equally traditional spouters' corner, just as traditional and protected by tradition as Hyde Park. How do we distinguish between the traditional spouters' corner and a corner at the other end of the same street? I do not make that distinction. The offence is the same wherever it is committed and it must be judged on the enormity of the offence and the purposes for which the offence is committed.
The previous Amendment has been rejected. That being so, if we are trying to increase the penalties under the 1908 Act and to use the Bill as the instrument of doing it, we should at least make clear what we are trying to do. I presume that the Government will tell us that it is not the intention that on summary conviction under the 1908 Act a person should be liable to imprisonment for three months or a fine not exceeding £100, or both. That would be absurd in relation to a £5 fine or a month's imprisonment under the 1908 Act. I presume, therefore, that it is not the intention that these penalties should be imposed for the kind of offences defined in the 1908 Act and in respect of which minor penalties were laid down and have been applied.
That being so, what is the objection to making it clear in the Bill that that is the position and that these new heavy penalties of £100 or three months' imprisonment, or £500 or a year's imprisonment, are intended to apply to the more serious offence which was supposed to be covered by the 1936 Act?
If this practical Amendment were adopted, I imagine that there could be no objection to its drafting. It could only assist in clarifying what the Government tell us they are trying to do. It could only assist the courts and relieve them of some of the burden of trying to


define the enormity of the offences over such a wide field in the two Acts.
For those reasons, the Amendment is entirely constructive and helpful. I see no reason for its rejection except, as I suggested earlier, that the Minister has no authority from the Government to accept Amendments. If that is so, it makes a mockery of the debate and of Parliament. I hope that the Ministers who are in charge of the Bill will extend the proceedings and get further instructions so that they may be released from their present instructions and, at least, give us the benefit of explaining their attitude. It is not asking too much for them to accept this modest Amendment, which could only be helpful and help to improve the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister was quite right in one thing he said, and that was that he had entirely failed in his previous speech to convince any of us on this side of the Committee by his argument in resisting the first Amendment. It is inevitable that arguments in support of this Amendment should to a considerable extent overlap the arguments which were put forward in respect of the first Amendment which has been defeated by the Committee, but, nevertheless, that Amendment having been found unacceptable to the Committee, I still hope that my hon. Friend will press this Amendment, because it is an Amendment which, at any rate, would go some way to establishing the distinction which ought to be made between the punishment meted out, on the one hand, to those who deliberately make provocative speeches advocating racial hatred and, on the other, to those naturally incensed and provoked when they hear such speeches.
I think the Minister justified his resistance to this Amendment by saying he thought the penalties ought to be the same for denying free speech, for abusing free speech, but the matter is not as simple as that. We cannot speak about free speech as though it were some abstract theory which entitles anyone to say anything he likes anywhere he likes; and we cannot say that if anybody stops him saying it he is denying free speech. I am afraid my hon. Friend did not understand the distinction I was trying to make.
The reason for this Amendment, in my opinion, is this. In the interests of free speech we should give the maximum liberty to people to proclaim unpopular ideas and unpopular tenets in places where it is customary for unpopular speeches to be made. There are limits to which people ought to go at such meetings. On the other hand, in a situation in which Fascist and neo-Fascist bands deliberately organise provocative, abominable meetings, advocating racial hatred, in places where they are deliberately calculated to arouse feeling, we do not think it right that people thus provoked in their own neighbourhoods, where there is a predominantly Jewish community or a predominantly coloured community, who object to those views and are provoked, should be said to be denying free speech. We think that if provocation arises the greater offence is in those who organise the meetings in those places and thereby abuse free speech. It is for that reason that we think the punishment should be greater for those who abuse freedom of speech in those places than for those who, quite legitimately we think, are provoked beyond measure to denying freedom of speech in those places.
They are the reasons for this Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.

Mr. Woodhouse: I shall be very brief. I have listened with care and consideration to the arguments put by all three hon. Members who have spoken, I am sorry to have to disappoint them again, but although I agree with many of the things which have been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), what I agree with does not, in my view, bear on this Amendment any more than it would have borne on the previous Amendment, because I adhere to the view that both rest on a misconception of the distinction between the two Acts. The point I wanted to try to make clear and which I failed to make clear to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) was not that I was arguing that because the previous Amendment had been defeated this one must be also but that I had heard no arguments for this Amendment which would not have been arguments, if valid, for the previous Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 186.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

WHITE FISH AUTHORITY (LEVY)

10.20 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Authority (General Levy) (Amendment) Regulations Confirmatory Order 1963 (S.I,, 1963, No. 1169), dated 1st July, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be annulled.
It might be as well to recall the purpose for which the White Fish Authority was set up. In intimating its setting up to the House in July, 1950, Mr. Attlee, then Prime Minister, said:
The difficulties of the white fish industry are basic, complex, and of long standing. There is, therefore, no simple solution to them. The view has often been expressed in this House that their difficulties are not likely to be overcome by the industry itself. The Government agree with this view and have decided to promote legislation to set up an Authority with adequate powers to regulate, re-organise and. develop the white fish industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 237.]
The powers of the Authority were clearly laid down. They are set out in Section 1 of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951. This provides that the Authority
…shall have the functions of reorganising, developing and regulating the white fish industry, and of keeping generally under review matters relating to that industry…
It goes on further to say that in addition to all that it must provide not only for the industry itself but for the consumer public.
When we consider this Order tonight we have to ask ourselves whether the Authority has carried out the programme laid down for it at its inception. If so, it ought to be paid for. If not, we are entitled to reject the Order. Let us consider some of the expenditure entailed in this administration. One gathers from reading the Authority's Report that numerically it is becoming top-heavy, because apparently salaries over the past eight years have trebled. One could well understand that this item of the Authority's expenditure would show an increase, but one cannot believe that salaries as such have gone up by three times in eight years. We therefore want to know whether there has been a sub-

stantial increase in the manpower and in the staff.
I find from the Authority's accounts that it is paying out of its income rather more than £17,000 for rent and rates for the premises which it occupies in London. It seems to me to be an exorbitant sum to pay for the purposes of the Authority. The Government have declared that there are far too many of these types of organisation insisting upon being situated in central London. There would be an opportunity to make a substantial reduction in expenditure and an opportunity to serve the economic purposes of the country better if the Authority were moved outside London altogether. What good reason is there for the Authority to be situated in London? One could well understand it if the Authority were in Grimsby or Aberdeen.

Mr. John Hall: Would the hon. Member not agree that if the Authority were concentrated in one of the ports this would cause a great deal of feeling in the other ports?

Mr. Hoy: I am certain that it would not. I do not think that because the Authority was situated in a port the industry would regard that as a situation which could be used to bring undue influence to bear on behalf of one section of the industry. In any event, whatever else may be said about it, the Authority is certainly completely apart from the whole of the industry by being situated where it now is, and I see no good reason for it. The British Trawlers Federation, whose views I express as well as those of other sections of the industry, has felt for some time that over the past years the main function of the White Fish Authority has been to supervise the grants and loans schemes. One does not seek to belittle this part of the Authority's work, but this is not the sole function for which the Authority was established. Indeed, when one remembers that the last Report of the White Fish Authority showed that the industry as a whole had been unable to meet its commitments, its interest payments on loans and its repayments of grants to the extent of £1¼ million last year, one can see how bad the position of the industry is.
It is against this background that we are faced with the present demand. It looks simple to state on the Order Paper that it is proposed to increase the levy on the industry from ½d. to 1d. per stone. At first glance that does not appear to be very much, but it amounts to £268,000 in a year. Let us look at the background of the Scottish industry, for example. Even a fortnight ago when we were discussing the grants for the ensuing year the Secretary of State for Scotland admitted that the Scottish middle-water trawling fleet had made considerable losses over the past year—in fact, so much so that it was quite unable to make its grant and loan repayments to the White Fish Authority, and this applied throughout the country.
On top of that, we were then enacting the new grants for the coming year which would provide a cut of £700 to £800 per annum to each middle-water trawler in Scotland, and, for that matter, in England as well. In view of that situation, we look with some apprehension upon the present proposal.
In spite of the losses and the subsequent cuts in the subsidies which will ensue in the year that lies ahead, the White Fish Authority says, "Despite all that, and despite the fact that we agree that you are in this position, we want another £268,000 out of your pocket." What does this mean to the different sections of the fleet? To the distant-water fleet—and this affects the ports of Grimsby and Hull in particular—it means an additional levy of £130,000 per annum. In Scotland, which is not affected to anything like the same extent because the fleet is not a distant-water fleet, it will mean an additional £4,000. But in the near and middle-water fleets it will mean in England and Wales an additional £31,000, and in Scotland a similar sum. To the inshore fleet, which is of particular importance in certain little areas in Scotland, it will cost an additional £9,000 to £10,000 in England and Wales, and an additional £25,500 in levies on the Scottish inshore fleet.
The Government are asking for a substantial sum. One would not object if included in these proposals was a proposal to do something for the industry. But merely to impose these cuts in subsidies and then to ask for this additional levy in no way improves the standing of

the industry. When we were discussing the cuts in the grants, a fortnight ago I said:
…these subsidies will not do what the White Fish Authority wants to do—they will not give us better boats, newer techniques, better quality or better marketing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1963; Vol. 681, c. 437.]
It was for these reasons that the White Fish Authority was established. So far the Authority has produced no proposals that will do any of these things. I regret that just when the chairman has been changed one should have to say these things. We welcome the new chairman and hope he will do a good job of work, but at least what we ought to have had from him—at any rate from the Authority—were the things the Authority was set up to do. So far, in all these years, it has failed to carry them out. I think hon. Members will agree that that is a plain statement of fact.
It is just not right for the Authority to come to this House and ask for another £250,000 from the industry, because every single penny of it has to be produced by the industry itself. It has to come from the cod end; the consumer will have to pay. We in this House have to ask whether we should do this or not. My view is that I should like the Authority to do the things it was set up to do, and which I think it has failed to do so far, and because it has failed to do them because of the condition the fishing industry is in at present, I think that this time of all times is not the correct time to ask the industry to produce another £250,000.
It is because of that that I shall ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby tonight to show our opposition to this proposal.

10.31 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: At a time when almost every producing organisation is realising that it needs to spend more attention on marketing and presentation, I think it is a good thing that we should be supporting the White Fish Authority in increasing this levy. I, as representing a constituency which is particularly interested in the inshore fishing industry, realise that about one-tenth of this amount will come from that section in Scotland. Basically, surely, this is what we need to do, because it has been shown over past years that the


decrease in the profitability of the industry has been due to the fact that the type of fish, the presentation of the fish, the way it is marketed, have been wanting. It is surely only by increasing our research, and by making certain we do properly present what is caught—at very great expense of time and labour in very difficult conditions in wintry seas—that we can ensure a proper return to the fishermen of this country. I think, therefore, that we should support this Order, and I have very much pleasure in doing so.

Mr. John Hall: I should like my hon. Friend to explain in what way the White Fish Authority has used the funds placed at its disposal arising out of levies for the purpose of improving the marketing of fish.

Sir J. Gilmour: It may not have done so as much as it should have done in the past, but this is surely what it is seeking to do, and I think we should support the Authority in that.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I am so sorry that tonight the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is not here, because he is a great expert on these matters, and he is, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) told a Norfolk audience, the next Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Therefore, it is a very sad thing that we have not got his presence here tonight—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Where is the Minister?

Mr. Prior: —particularly as in an earlier Notice on the Paper he was praying against this Order.
It is particularly sad he is not here tonight because the hon. Member for Workington is a great expert on research. He is always asking the Government to carry out more scientific research. Speaking in the debate we had on the Pig Industry Development Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order, he said:
I am often accused of being somewhat fanatical about research in agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 395.]
I would suggest that he ought to be here tonight to show how fanatical he is about

research in fishing as well, because that is what this levy is about.
I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) would have made just as good a speech, and probably a rather better speech, if he had been speaking in favour of the levy. Perhaps it is that the Opposition feel that this is a good opportunity to have one last Division before we break up for the Summer Recess, and, therefore, they are choosing tonight as a good opportunity to oppose this fresh levy rather in the same way as they would oppose anything else which was raised at this time of night just before the Recess.
I hope that the fishing industry will not get the wrong idea from this. The hon. Member for Leith knows just as well as we know on this side of the House that if the White Fish Authority is to survive and do the job it has always been supposed to do, and which we think it will do now under the new chairman, it has to have the extra money. It has a very important job to do. It is true to say that nearly every branch of the fishing industry has at one time or another opposed an increase in levy, but that is in no way unnatural. The same thing happened with the Pig Industry Development Authority; nearly all the farming community at one time or another opposed an increase of levy there.
I am rather surprised that there have not been greater representations made by the British Trawlers Federation, the fish merchants association or other associations against the introduction of the levy. In fact, the representations made have been only half-hearted. On the whole, the fishing industry realises that this money really is necessary to the Authority if it is to do its job properly.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—absolutely wrong—and what is more, he is saying this when he knows it to be untrue. He must know that every association was asked to make representations—the Minister will not seek to deny it—and protest most vehemently against the proposal—every section of the industry, fishing or trading.

Mr. Prior: It is interesting that the fishing industry has made very few representations to me about it, and I cannot help feeling that if it had felt very strongly on the matter that is exactly


what it would have done. I am certain that it would have chased me from morning to night if it had felt all that strongly about it. Naturally, it would make representations against it, but it is the very lack of strength of the protestations which has convinced me that the fishing industry is not rigidly opposed to the introduction of the levy. If it is to spend, as one understands, the extra £250,000 or £300,000 on research, no one would deny that research is necessary. I cannot believe that even the Opposition would deny that this money ought to be spent on research. Is it not fair that the new chairman should have a chance to show exactly what he can do?
Paragraph 140 of the Report mentions five projects which the Authority is considering and which it is stated are capable of solution within a year. These projects are; engineering development concerned with ship design, propulsion and machinery; processing, handling and preservation; development of improved fish catching techniques; development of improved fish finding techniques; and utilisation of alternative resources, including artificially reared stocks. All these things are certainly worthy of research, and if it requires £300,000 to do this, I think it is right that that money should be forthcoming. In order to do this it has set up the industrial development unit at Hull. It is anew organisation which has been set up, and it will require the extra amount of money.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Opposition are trying, tonight of all nights, except for the reasons which I have stated, to pray against this Order. I could understand their praying against the Order for the sake of having a discussion on this very important matter. That would be sensible. But to pray against it with the idea of voting against it seems to me to be flying in the face of all that they have said in the past year or two about research and development done by authorities. The Opposition are all in favour of setting up authorities. Under their great new agricultural plan they want to set up commissions to do the work—and authorities and commissions are closely allied. Why tonight have they suddenly developed this dislike of the White Fish Authority so that they do not want it to have the extra money?
I do not believe that this is altogether to do with the White Fish Authority itself. In fact, I am certain that it is not. I hope that the Government will stand firm on this issue and will see that the White Fish Authority gets down to the job which it was set up to do. I do not think that it has done it very well in past years. The Government should see that it makes a big effort, with the extra money which is forthcoming, to put its house in order and to help the fishing industry, which badly needs this help. If it can do this, then the money which is to be provided will be well worthwhile and will do do a good job for the industry.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government in the Lobby to reject this Prayer, which is moved not for reasons connected with the fishing industry but for reasons connected with the internal politics of the Labour Party, who tonight at 11 p.m. want a Division on the Prayer so that they can wind up before the Summer Recess with a Division against the Government. I hope that we shall keep the debate going until 11.30 p.m., so that we shall keep from their trains and their beds a few hon. Members who have no interest in the fishing industry at all but who have to stay an extra half-hour to vote against this Order.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) usually makes a rather intelligent contribution to our debates, but he cannot be said to have made such a contribution tonight. I fail to see why he should be so cynical of the Opposition's motives. Normally he is rather critical and outspoken, but he has made such an obsequious speech towards his own Front Bench that I can only assume that he is a candidate for the leadership of his party.
He said that he had received few complaints from his constituents. Lowestoft is not exactly a major fishing port, but I thought that people there were rather more vocal than he suggests, and certainly in Grimsby, as in other places, I have had extremely angry and harsh comments on the proposals about the White Fish Authority levy. The fact of the matter is that this industry, which is normally disunited, for once is totally united in opposition to this proposal.
It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Lowestoft fundamentally gave his case away. He attacked us for opposing the levy and asked whether we wanted the White Fish Authority to do its job properly. A few minutes later he admitted that it had not done its job properly in the past. If we were to be given a guarantee tonight by the Minister that the Authority would alter its ways in future, we might withdraw our opposition, but the fact is, as the hon. Member said, that the Authority has not done its job properly in the past, and we have no indication, other than the change in chairmanship, that there will be any major change in future.
The hon. Member is inaccurate when he talks about all the additional money being required for research. That is not so. When one begins to look at the figures one finds many other aspects of costs which have gone up proportionately at least as much as the cost of research—if not more.
Our fundamental attitude was accurately expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). We think that there is a job which the White Fish Authority ought to be doing. If it were doing that job we should not grudge a doubling or trebling of the levy. But we are still not satisfied that it has done that job in the past, and is about to do it now, and since we are not satisfied that it is doing the job, it is only right and logical that we should take the attitude which we have taken. We are always being lectured by hon. Members opposite about the importance of scrutinising Government expenditure, and it is therefore right that we should examine these accounts in considerable detail.
I should like to ask a number of specific questions about increases in the White Fish Authority's costs in recent years. First, the question of salaries, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned. These have increased greatly, and the normal reason given is that the increase represents salary improvements. If it does then we are all delighted. We do not want the poor employees of the White Fish Authority to be starved. We want them to be properly paid. But once we look at the salaries in detail we find that from 1953 to 1963 they have gone by from £26,000 to £114,000. This

is an increase of four and a half times. I doubt whether the industry has received a proportionate benefit. We should like a detailed reply to that.
Looking at the accounts given in the last Report, we find, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, a very large figure for rents arising from the fact of having an office in the centre of London. I strongly echo my hon. Friend's plea that the Government should consider moving the White Fish Authority out of the centre of London either to the suburbs or to one of the ports. We would be delighted to give the Authority accommodation in Grimsby.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Why not Aberdeen?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, one-fifth to Aberdeen and four-fifths to Grimsby.
Among the Authority's other expenses there has been a startling increase in office expenses during the last year. Why do they suddenly go up? There has been a jump of £2,500 on an expenditure of less than £10,000. Is this increase reflected in an increased benefit to the industry? We should like to know.
Travelling expenses have gone up by nearly a half. Why this jump in the amount of travel? Again, has the industry benefited proportionately? We want to know. Professional fees have gone up by three times. No explanation has been given for these large increases either by the White Fish Authority or by the Government, and we want an explanation.
On the question of publicity—and this has been argued before—my view has always been that an expenditure of £75,000 on advertising and publicity is either too little or too much. It is far too little to sustain a campaign such as is carried out by the milk and beer industries. I do not think that this trivial amount is of any use whatsoever. It should be either zero or £1 million. This half-way house figure seems rather absurd.
Then there is the question of bad debts. There is a large provision for bad debts and it is going to be increased very much in 1963. It is true, as we all know, that certain firms in the industry owe the White Fish Authority very substantial arrears both for interest


and capital repayments under the loans scheme. But surely these loans are secured. We know from the Authority's Report that practically the whole of the loans are secured by mortgages on vessels and other assets. The unsecured loans are trivial in amount. Virtually all the loans are secured on mortgage, and in cases where the situation has become critical—again as we know from paragraph 20 of the Report—the Authority has repossessed itself of trawlers built under the loans scheme. If these loans are secured on new trawlers, do we need this large provision in the accounts for bad debts? Again, we should like an explanation of that.
On the doubling of the levy, I agree with what my hon. Friend said, It seems that the wiser course of action would have been, as there is a new chairman, not to have doubled the levy practically on the day that the new chairman takes office but to have given him a year as chairman to take a view of the industry and the functions of the White Fish Authority and then to see if the levy needed doubling.
Apparently the hon. Member for Lowestoft agrees, or, having made his comic speech, he has withdrawn from active participation in the debate.
I now mention some things which the White Fish Authority has not done in the past and which I want to be assured it is to do before we can agree to the levy being doubled. The first thing it has never done and should do is to give strong national leadership to the industry. This is an industry which desperately needs national leadership because it must be about the most divided industry in the country. The trawling part of the industry is, to put it mildly, not on the best of terms with the distributing part. The English part has differences of opinion with the Scottish part. The distant-water fleet has differences of opinion with the near and middle-water fleet and the inshore section is out on a limb with no connection with either of them. The industry has never spoken with a single voice. Far more than most industries it needs a body like the White Fish Authority to provide it with united national leadership.
That is the number one task. I agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft

that the number two task is beginning to be done on a reasonable scale. That is that the Authority should be a constant pressure group for technical innovation in the industry. The Fleck Committee Report told us, what most of those involved knew already, that this was not technically the most modern and up-to-date of industries; in fact, technically much of the industry is backward. If we look at the amount it spends on research we find that it comes out rather low in the list of British industries.
There is a great need for a public authority like the W.F.A. to act as a constant pressure group for technical innovation and research. The Authority has been doing this in the past, not always successfully. It wasted a lot of time in Grimsby trying to introduce anew scheme for mechanical unloading which every lumper told it would be a wash-out before it started. Still, it deserves credit for trying. If we had had an Authority which was technically well equipped, the industry would not be in the sad state in which it is today. Looking back, I should have thought that it was clear in the fifties that the industry over-invested enormously in conventional trawlers. This over-investment could have been saved by a White Fish Authority really doing its job.
It is a matter of common agreement that the methods of handling fish at docks, such as Grimsby Docks and others, are out-of-date and backward. Everyone knows this, but no serious investigation of what should be done has been carried out. We had the famous three-man commission, which spent about a day and a half in Grimsby. Although some of us may have seen it privately, the report has not been made public.
The last thing which the Authority should do, as I have often said, is to set up an economic research unit. We have had no serious economic study of the British fishing industry. The Fleck Committee, although it had two economists on it, did not produce any serious projection about the future of the industry. There is no economist in the Fisheries Department of the Ministry.
To give one or two examples of the information we must have, we need, first, a general idea of what is likely to happen to the demand for fish. We have many


international comparisons of consumption of fish in different countries in the E.E.C. and so on, but we need some sort of study which will give an idea of whether there is much chance of people eating more fish per head in this country. The much debated question of advertising cannot be settled until we know whether or not demand can be substantially increased.
A critical question is, what is the right size for the industry? We need an economic research unit in the Authority which has information about trends in consumption and information about fishing fleets of all the other Western countries, trading patterns in the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A., and generally much more economic evidence than the Fleck Committee apparently had. It had virtually no serious economic and statistical evidence. The Authority should therefore try to reach some conclusion about the right future size and shape of the industry.
The fact is that the industry presents a very puzzling picture at the moment. We are landing a good deal less fish than we were ten years ago, both from the British fleet and from imports. Prices are a good deal higher than they were ten years ago. Yet the industry is making greater losses than it was ten years ago. Why? This is a very paradoxical situation which the Authority should be studying and explaining.
I echo what has been said from this side of the House already. If these were the kind of things that the White Fish Authority had been doing, was doing at the moment, and was about to do in the future, we should be perfectly happy about doubling the levy. The fact is that in the past, although the Authority has done some things very well, such as administering grants and loans, it has not given the kind of leadership to the industry which, Heaven knows, the industry desperately needs. Therefore, we are not prepared to sign the blank cheque put before us tonight.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I support the general theme of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), namely that the Authority must show the industry that it is fulfilling a need, a need which is not duplicated elsewhere.

When I first went to Hull nine years ago I found that all sections of the industry took the view that they did not mind paying a levy to the Authority, provided that it stayed out of their hair and left them alone. In those days the levy was ½d. per stone. Now it is to be 1d. per stone. The industry has advanced a long way since then in their desire for better co-ordination.
We want the Authority to do a constructive job. The hon. Member for Grimsby has mentioned many of the points I had intended to mention. I will underline one or two of them. First, publicity. As the hon. Gentleman said, £75,000 is useless. A good publicity campaign will cost very much more and should use television as well as the Press. Various sections of the industry spend a great deal of money on propaganda. If only these sums, plus the money the Authority has available, could be co-ordinated, we could have an effective white fish propaganda campaign. One task which should be tackled is that of persuading schools, hospitals and other institutions to buy decent fish. At the moment such institutions buy cheap fish. In schools, for example, it is being fed to youngsters. When they grow up, they hate fish almost for ever more and it takes a very long time to bring them round to liking this excellent food.
Research is needed. In the past the Authority has not been very successful. One or two projects undertaken by the Authority such as the "Northern Wave" freezing experiment are still talked about and, I fear, laughed at. Not only must the Authority undertake research. It must ensure that such research as it undertakes is not duplicated elsewhere. A great deal of research is going on in various places. There is the research going on under the Ministry Fisheries Department. There is the D.S.I.R. There is the W.F.A. Various sections of the industry carry out their own research. There is the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. If the Authority oversees a programme of research, without necessarily carrying out its own research, that will fulfil a useful function. It is fair to say that the most successful research so far has been done by the industry itself. The Authority, for example, is not very much help on the production of the "Lord Nelson" the


"Junella", or similar modern kinds of trawler.
The third point which has been mentioned is co-ordination for the industry. Attention should be paid to leadership. An attempt should be made to get down to some form of rationalisation in the various sections of the industry and co-operation between the various sections. Consumer research and economic research should be conducted. It is ridiculous that the Authority carries out a great deal of this form of research, which is to some degree duplicated by other sections of the industry at Hull, Grimsby and in other ports. There is too much duplication. More co-ordination is being provided by the Joint Fisheries Committees in the House that is being provided at the moment by the Authority. The Authority should be doing the kind of work that we are doing at the moment. It should be trying to get the industry together to discuss its joint problems.
One hopes that the new Chairman. Mr. Matthews, will get down to this. If he does, £¼ million on a turnover of £59 will be a cheap price to pay. What we want from the Authority is best summed up by this paragraph from the editorial in the Fish Trades Gazette of 13th July:
The important point is how and where the extra revenue is to be spent, and the industry should make sure that its views in this matter are respected.
So far the authority has concentrated the greater part of its energies on the stimulation of production, but the point has now been reached where the most urgent need is to stimulate consumption. It can do this by demanding higher standards of quality and embarking upon more effective publicity schemes.
If the White Fish Authority follows that advice, I do not think that this increase in levy will be at all expensive. If it does not—and this is a point which I put to my hon. Friend in the last fisheries debate—the Authority will have outlived its usefulness.
The Fleck Committee suggested amalgamation with the Herring Industry Board. I again commend to the attention of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the article in the Fishing News which suggested that if—and I repeat if—the White Fish Authority cannot fulfil the functions required by the whole of the industry, we should think of setting up four autonomous

fishery boards, for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and with statutory powers and responsible directly to the Ministry. Then, at least, the boards would have close contact with the local ports in the area which it serves and we would get the liaison that we need between the various sections of the industry and not, as it now sometimes appears, rather distant guidance from London, which is a very long way from places like Aberdeen.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I will not keep the House more than two minutes. I wish only to add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), because I do not think that it could be suggested that I am unduly sensitive about the difficulties, at least of certain sections of the fishing industry.
I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made the speech that he did this evening.

Mr. Crosland: Disgraceful.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member gave the game away in his last few sentences, because he did not intend to make a contribution to the discussion. He attempted a little filibuster, hoping that we wanted to get home, whereas he wanted to slay. That is a reversal of the facts, because we on this side have constantly been chided that we were keeping the House unnecessarily.
My position concerning the levy is clear. The White Fish Authority is a necessary organisation for the fishing industry. I want to see the Authority strengthened so that it can do the job which is being tried out in the industry. There is great need for complete co-ordination in the various parts of the industry, which in practice work as individual units. There are a great deal of other things that could be done as well.
I can only ask myself whether this is the time to impose upon the industry, particularly the inshore and the near and middle-water sections, an additional burden which they have to find. It is true that it comes from the consumer, but the industry must find it in the first instance. It may well be that what we are doing is merely increasing the losses which have to be borne by those two sides of the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leith quoted the portions of the £268,000 that will have to be borne by the various sections and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will devote some of his time to replying to this. I cannot feel that at a time when the inshore and the near and middle-water boats are losing money and when, in practice, we are reducing the assistance which we are giving to those sections of the industry, we should impose an additional burden upon them. It is nonsense to recognise that many of the near and middle-water boats are losing up to £5,000 a year and, at the same time, proceed to decrease the assistance given to them and increase the amount they will have to pay by a levy of this kind. It will represent a substantial increase for these vessels. My mathematics are not good, but it would appear to represent an increase of 100 per cent. or from ½d. to 1d. per stone.
Leaving aside the £130,000 that will have to be found by the distant water boats, how will the near and middle-water vessels find this extra money? If they are now making losses of up to £5,000 a year, from where will the additional money come? Before the Prayer is rejected, we should be told in simple terms how the additional money is to be found by the middle and near water vessels, bearing in mind their present losses.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: It is not so long ago, when I was at the Ministry, that I listened to many debates on the fishing industry. I recall one part of the theme which ran through many hours of speeches: the need for more research and leadership in the industry. Was I satisfied that the industry was equipped to do these things, hon. Members continually asked the Government.
I have sat in the House tonight listening, somewhat curiously, to speeches from hon. Members who have apparently been saying that whereas the need for more research, greater leadership and more expenditure is necessary, for some reason the White Fish Authority should be denied the means for carrying that out. That is illogical.
This Prayer is really a political exercise rather than a service to the fishing industry. In an industry as diverse as fishing attention has been drawn to the natural difference of view that there must often be between the near, middle and distant water fleets because of the different nature of their business. But if this theme which has been deployed night after night in recent years for more to be done is to mean anything, surely it is illogical to suggest that this proposed increase is not serious and is designed to bring benefit to the industry?
I am sure that it will be demonstrated tonight by the Minister that there is a strong case for rejecting the Prayer. Having taken part in many of these debates before, I could not let this occasion pass without drawing attention to the illogical nature of many of the speeches to which we have been expected to listen.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Is not the hon. Member being somewhat illogical? Is he not really saying that when he was at the Ministry he was not prepared to do what the present Ministry is prepared to do?

Mr. Vane: I do not follow the hon. Member.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Prayer on principle, and also for the practical reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). I have rarely listened to a case more conclusively presented and argued than that presented by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). He put forward the principles that should actuate the House in accepting the Prayer and rejecting the Order, and supported his argument with a clear and coherent analysis of the figures in the Authority's Report. Each of my hon. Friends has dealt conclusively with a separate angle; together, they coerce the House into accepting the Prayer. For me to pursue either line would be to pile Pelion on Ossa.

11.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I should like to deal, first, with the broad


considerations that lie behind the decision to confirm the regulation made by the White Fish Authority to increase the levy to 1d. a stone, and then to deal with the special points raised by hon. Members. As the House knows, the levy had remained unchanged at ½d. a stone since 1956. The Authority's accounts showed a deficit in 1961–62 and 1962–63 of £17,000 and £52,000, respectively, and in 1963–64 the Authority estimated that it would have a deficit of £190,000 unless there was some change in the amount of levy. These deficits have been covered up to date by the Authority's reserve, but this situation obviously could not continue.
I should make it clear that the deficits have nothing to do with the grant and loans arrangements. In part, they have been due to increased costs of administration. The salaries of the staff have gone up and, as the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, have gone up quite considerably. This is partly due to the institution of the industrial development unit.
As the hon. Member for Grimsby knows, the percentage increase in costs one can show depends very much on the base year one takes. He took 1953, when the Authority was just starting up and had a rather small staff, but there has since been a considerable increase. That, combined with the setting-up of the industrial development unit, is the reason for the increased costs, especially the cost of salaries. Costs of office equipment, rates and travel have also gone up, but no more than would be expected in present circumstances—indeed, the increase is quite reasonable.
The hon. Member for Leith—and his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby—questioned the Authority's staying in London but, having examined the position very carefully, I think that the cost of the headquarters in London is very reasonable. I doubt whether it could get similar accommodation, with similar facilities, at anything like the same price—certainly not on the periphery of London—and I very much doubt whether it could get the same facilities anywhere else, remembering, of course, that it was in the country for a period earlier on.

Mr. J. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that it is impossible to obtain premises for the Authority outside London for less than £17,000 a year?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What I am saying is that I think that the cost to the Authority of their London premises is very reasonable. [An HON. MEMBER: "By what standard?"] By what the Authority has to do and the efficiency the Authority can gain by operating from London and the fact that it is a convenient place for those who wish to visit the Authority and from which the Authority can radiate. Travelling expenses would also be greatly increased if the Authority were to move.
In part the increased total expenditure has been due to the expansion of the Authority's expenditure on research and development. Direct expenditure on projects has increased from about £30,000 in 1959–60 to almost £60,000 in 1962–63. An expenditure of £150,000 is estimated for 1963–64. I should make it clear that this is the Authority's net expenditure on research and development. Besides this, there are contributions from the Treasury and in some cases there are direct contributions to research programmes from the industry as well.
These figures do not tell the whole story, because the cost of administering the research programme is included in the Authority accounts not under research but under administration and that figure has to be added. This part of the Authority's expenditure has been increased recently by the establishment of the industrial development unit estimated to cost £42,000 this year. This unit, located in Hull, is intended to supervise the Authority's research and development programme, but the most important part of its task will be to interpret the results of research and to help with advice on their commercial application. I need say no more about it, because hon. Members have probably read the informative article on the unit in last week's Fishing News.
This was the position in November when the Authority was running at a deficit and had established a new unit and it asked my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland to confirm the regulation increasing the levy. The objectors were heard and their


objections carefully considered. I need not go into the objections in detail now. Many of the points raised have been mentioned by hon. Members.
We concluded that the only way of avoiding an increase in the levy would have been a substantial reduction of the Authority's activities. There are only three activities that cost any substantial sum of money at all. They are research and development, training and publicity. The future of the industry depends to a great extent on research and development and on training. I am sure that the House would agree that any substantial cut in either of these would be quite out of the question.
Publicity is another matter, but important sections of the industry, as the hon. Member for Grimsby has said, support the Authority's publicity work and would like to see it extended in many cases. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Leith has pointed out, the Authority, has had a new chairman appointed this month. I am glad that his appointment has been welcomed in all parts of the House and that he has been wished well in the formidable task that faces him. Many other changes have been made in the Authority's management. In these circumstances some increase in the levy was absolutely inevitable. We considered very carefully whether a levy of ¾d. would be possible instead of 1d., but this would still have meant that the Authority could not have spent the £150,000 on research and development, and we considered ways and means of finding the rest of the money. We already spend a substantial amount of money on fisheries research through grants to independent institutions, through work done in the fishery department's laboratories and through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at Torry.
It seemed to us only right that the industry should contribute, either through the levy or by some direct means, to that part of the research programme which is deliberately aimed at benefit to the industry in the near future. Therefore, we asked the trawler owners whether they would make a direct contribution to research, and here I come to the point about how the industry can cope with this situation. We promised a substantial

Exchequer contribution, together with the Authority's, so that the programme should go forward unchanged- Some trawler owners were willing to contribute, but the majority could not see their way to do this. So we were faced with the alternative of either cutting the research programme and the training programme or approving a rise in the levy from ½d. to 1d. Naturally, we have chosen the latter. Those were the considerations which lead us to make the Order which is now being prayed against.
If I may quickly deal with one or two of the points which have been raised, my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said that he was worried about the duplication of research carried out by the Authority and by other bodies. I can assure him that there is no duplication here. The Authority itself has no research organisation as such, apart from the industrial development unit which has just been set up. The work is generally done in other organisations and the Authority contributes towards the work done by them. It makes contributions to those organisations. There are examples which I could give—

Mr. Wall: Could my hon. Friend say whether this research is co-ordinated centrally?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, indeed. All the projects which the Authority undertakes and which need Government contributions as a corollary to the Authority's contribution are carefully scrutinised in the Department to make certain that there is no overlapping with other projects which are under way by independent or Government research institutions. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no duplication.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) referred to bad debts, the Authority's charges and so on. The bad debt provision, as the hon. Gentleman said, arises from the ½ per cent. margin between the interest paid to the Authority by borrowers and the interest paid by the Authority to the Exchequer. This has nothing whatever to do with the levy; it covers the margin of administrative costs relating to loans and grants. It is true that the Authority has a mortgage on the vessels, but mortgagees can lose money if there are no purchasers for


the property on which they hold the mortgage. That is why the provision has to be made.
Another point that was raised referred to the quality of fish, and my hon. Friend said that it should be improved and that the Authority should bend its mind to achieving this improvement. In fact, the Fleck Committee has stressed the importance of this matter, and the Authority has now prepared a list of subjects suitable for regulations in the light of these discussions with the industry. I expect the Authority will be putting forward definite proposals based on this list in the near future.
May I now briefly tell the House about the industrial development unit which is of extreme importance in the context of the Authority's work in the future. The unit is co-ordinating the research which is done and the projects which are put forward by the Advisory Committee of the Authority, the Chairman of which is Sir Frederick Brundrett. This committee looks into research and draws up specifications for development work and arranges contracts with contractors. The staff of the unit, eight trained engineers, headed by a scientist from the D.S.I.R., will oversee the work carried out on the contracts and seethe prototypes are properly tested, and they make sure the results are interpreted and made available to the industry. They will also, which is very important, give advice on the commercial application of the research done.
Pleas have been made from both sides of the House that the Authority should give strong leadership to the industry. I believe firmly that if it has the means to implement its programme the new chairman, in course of time, will be able to give the lead which the industry wants. I think that to try to cut down its programme, whether in training, research, or elsewhere, would be disastrous for the industry and disastrous also for the Authority.
It may be that there are certain portions of the fleet which at the moment are going through hard times, but I would tell the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), if he can spare me a moment, that there is a great deal of controversy about who bears the cost of the levy. If one talks

to the wholesalers one hears that they say they are paying the cost; if one talks to the retailers one hears that they say it is they who are bearing it; and the trawler owners say they are. They all seem to think they bear the cost of the levy. I do not accept the argument the hon. Gentleman put forward that because parts of the fleet are having a hard time therefore it is wrong that we should provide the means whereby the Authority can do the fundamental work which will strengthen the industry, not only for now but for the future as well. I believe that the Authority, with these funds, will be able to give the strong leadership which is asked for by the industry.

Mr. Loughlin: Is it true to say that money is paid direct by the trawler owners in this instance, and, if that is so, how can we expect trawlers which are losing money each year to have the additional burden, irrespective of what the arguments are?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The levy is paid by the wholesalers at this particular stage of the chain of distribution. So the argument is whether they pay a lesser or a greater part of it.
I think this Order will strengthen the industry and that the leadership will be there, and I therefore ask the House to reject the Prayer.

Mr. John Hall: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Authority intends to carry out experiments in marketing and distribution, which is a very important part of the industry? Is it also going to provide market information to the industry, and have an economics research unit as well? These are all very essential points.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I will not weary the House with the whole list of research projects to be undertaken, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friend and give him the list, which I have here, of what the projects are.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the White Fish Authority (General Levy) (Amendment) Regulations Confirmatory Order 1963 (S.I. 1963, No. 1169) dated 1st July, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 143.

Division No. 181.]
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Gunter, Ray
Pentland, Norman


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Popplewell, Ernest


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hannan, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harper, Joseph
Probert, Arthur


Balrd, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Redhead, E. C.


Barnett, Guy
Hayman, F. H.
Rhodes, H.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hilton, A. V.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Hooson, H. E.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Blyton, William
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, Edward


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hunter, A. E.
Skeffington, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Small, William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Snow, Julian


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Steele, Thomas


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stones, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Swain, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Swingler, Stephen


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taverne, D.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lubbock, Eric
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dempsey, James
McBride, N.
Thornton, Ernest


Diamond, John
McCann, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dodde, Norman
MacColl, James
Wade, Donald


Edelman, Maurice
McInnes, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Manuel, Archie
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Monslow, Walter
Winterbottom, R. E.


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, B. K.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grey, Charles
Paget, R. T.



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, John
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Ifor Davies.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Peart, Frederick





NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Brooman-White, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Allason, James
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Doughty, Charles


Arbuthnot, John
Bullard, Denys
Drayson, G. B.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Duncan, Sir James


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Balniel, Lord
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Barter, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Fell, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Chataway, Christopher
Finlay, Graeme


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cleaver, Leonard
Foster, John


Berkeley, Humphry
Cole, Norman
Freeth, Denzil


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cooke, Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Biffen, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gammans, Lady


Bingham, R. M.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bishop, F. P.
Critchley, Julian
Glover, Sir Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Crowder, F. P.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Curran, Charles
Goodhew, Victor


Box, Donald
Currie, G. B. H.
Gower, Raymond


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, Alan


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Gurden, Harold




Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil
Shaw, M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Smithers, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir. Harwood (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mawby, Ray
Speir, Rupert


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stodart, J. A.


Hay, John
Mills, Stratton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus
Storey, Sir Samuel


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Talbot, John E.


Hill, J. E, B, (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hornby, R. P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, J. C.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peel, John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Turner, Colin


Kershaw, Anthony
Pitman, Sir James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kirk, Peter
Pott, Percivall
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Leavey, J. A.
Prior, J. M. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Lilley, F. J. P.
Ramsden, James
Walder, David


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Walker, Peter


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Loveys, Walter H.
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Ward, Dame Irene


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wise, A. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McLaren, Martin
Roots, William
Woodhouse, C. M.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Woollam, John


McMaster, Stanley R.
Russell, Ronald



Maddan, Martin
St. Clair, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Pym.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[11.29 p.m.


Ainsley, William
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
O'Malley, B. K.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gourlay, Harry
Peart, Frederick


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Grey, Charles
Pentland, Norman


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blyton, William
Hannan, William
Probert, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Rhodes, H.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hilton, A. V.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Holman, Percy
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, James H.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Stones, William


Crosland, Anthony
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Taverne, D.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Thornton, Ernest


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Wainwright, Edwin


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Watkins, Tudor


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Weitzman, David


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Wilkins, W. A.


Dempsey, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Willey, Frederick


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Dodds, Norman
McCann, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, James
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, Archie



Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Mr. Whitlock.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)





NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Awdry Daniel (Chippenham)
Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey


Barter, John
Gower, Raymond
Orr-Ewing Sir Charles


Batsford, Brian
Green, Alan
Osborn, Jorn (Hallam)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bidgood, John C.
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John


Bingham, R. M.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pitman, Sir James


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pott, Percivall


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Box, Donald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Prior, J. M. L.


Braine, Bernard
Hendry, Forbes
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pym, Francis


Brooman-White, R.
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, James


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hollingworth, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, R. P.
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bullard, Denys
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C.
Roots, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Russell, Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Crawley, Aldan
Kitson, Timothy
Shepherd, William


Curran, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, J. A.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Doughty, Charles
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Duncan, Sir James
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Foster, John
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Turner, Colin


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Freeth, Denzil
Maginnis, John E.
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Vane, W. M. F.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Miss Joan







Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Woollam, John


Walder, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Walker, Peter
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wall, Patrick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Finlay and Mr. MacArthur.


Ward, Dame Irene
Woodhouse, C. M.

TELEVISION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

8.45 p.m.

Title

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I beg to move,
That consideration of the Lords Amendment in the Title, line 10, be postponed till after the consideration of subsequent Amendments.

Mr. Roy Mason: Am I in order to talk about this Amendment, or must I wait until all the subsequent Amendments have been discussed before I can talk about the Title?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member must wait until we reach the Title.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2.—(AUTHORITY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROGRAMMES.)

Lords Amendment: In line 4, leave out "having regard".

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 8, leave out "shall—(a)" and insert"—(a) shall"

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next five Amendments on page 2:

In line 10, after "guidance" insert "(i)"

In line 13, after "and" insert "(ii)"

In line 17, after "code" insert
and in considering what other matters ought to be included in the code in pursuance of sub-paragraph (ii) shall have special regard


to programmes broadcast when large numbers of children and young persons may be expected to be watching;

In line 18, after "(b)" insert "shall"

In line 19, leave out "such programmes" and insert
programmes (other than advertisements) broadcast by the Authority

The first three are paving Amendments to the fourth, in line 17, which is the main Amendment, and the last two are consequential.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That will be satisfactory if it is agreeable to the House.

Mr. Bevins: These Amendments are designed to give particular emphasis to the point that the Authority may cover in the code objectionable matters other than violence, not only in general but in particular, at times when children and young persons are likely to be watching.

Mr. Mason: In general the House welcomes the Amendment, but there is danger of taking the stifling of the I.T.A. too far.
To some extent the main Amendment is guilty of tedious repetition, for the same words are used—
when large numbers of children and young persons may be expected to be watching
the programme. What other objectionable matters has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? Subsection (2) mentions, particularly, violence. Has the right hon. Gentleman also in mind sex, and films or plays of a low moral content? Is this what he is thinking about, in particular?
I am no fanatical lover of I.T.A., but in my view it has gone through a testing period over the last few years. It has been subject to a great deal of criticism by Pilkington, Parliament and the public. It would be dangerous to take to the extreme in every Clause of the Bill the stifling of I.T.A.
I say that because it is to go through a more difficult period quite soon. The B.B.C. will be granted a second channel. It may quite soon be experimenting with colour television. The Bill puts financial strictures on independent television. By taking these codes to the extreme we may be spoiling any competition which exists between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.

I therefore ask if the Postmaster-General can explain in more detail what he has in mind and that there should be no danger of applying these rules too rigidly.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Before the Postmaster-General replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), I wish to make quite clear that my hon. Friends and I believe that we can never over-emphasise something which is good. Their Lordships have underlined and emphasised what we have been trying to say, both on the Floor of this House and in Committee, that very severe codes are required if we are to improve the standard of television. Anything which contributes towards that objective meets with our fullest approval.
Throughout discussions in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) and others emphasised the question of violence portrayed on television, violence in an exaggerated form, which no doubt was having an adverse impact, influence and effect upon children and young persons. My hon. Friend was quite justified in placing emphasis on the question of violence, but some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and I, felt that violence was not the only thing we had to try to obliterate from viewers, particularly young persons and children. We felt that vulgarity, sensuality and the portrayal of loose living as an apparent example of the ordinary lives of our families were something which must be stopped.
We agree with their Lordships that, in addition to trying to prevent this portrayal of exaggerated forms of violence, we should do all we can to take away from the screen and the minds of young people vulgarity, sensuality and excessive portrayal of the worst features of sex in many of its forms. I am glad that the code will be strengthened. I do not mind how much we repeat good things. To strengthen and make more effective the code was exactly what we wanted to do. We are glad that their Lordships have found a form of words which have been accepted by the Government.
We sincerely hope that when we have a better, more substantial and strengthened code and higher standards in relation to these things, the Authority, which


under the Bill will have more power vested in it, will make sure that our children have not to watch some of the filth which is disgusting even to adults and which is having a very adverse, detrimental effect on the attitude of young people. This Lords Amendment has our strongest, possible approval.

Mr. Bevins: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I shall make a few short comments on what has been said.
This is not a Government-inspired Amendment. It was suggested by a noble Lord who is a member of the party opposite. Strictly speaking, I do not think this form of words is necessary in view of the wording of Clause 2(2) as it stands, but it has the advantage of making more explicit what I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish. That is that the Authority should include in its code, not only rules governing portrayal of violence, but also other unsavoury features of television which might have a harmful effect on children and young persons. We all know, without going into any detail, what those features of television are, and I hope that the House will be content with that.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Throughout the proceedings on the Bill the Postmaster-General has shown himself to be fully seized of the importance of increasing the restriction and discipline in the sense indicated by these words. These words can no doubt be regarded as tautological to some extent. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) that nothing is lost by repeating, even in the final form of the Bill, the intention of the House that both obvious violence and the more subtle type of violence in the minds of the young must be kept within bounds. One cannot forbid and censor. One would not wish to do so. This is a message to those responsible for these programmes that the House and, I believe, the public expects a more balanced approach to programmes of this type. I want to express my appreciation of the manner and spirit in which the Postmaster-General from the start has approached this very difficult and vital question.

Mr. Victor Yates: This is the first time I have ever agreed with a Lords Amendment.

I was delighted to see that the Government were to insert these words into the Bill—
and in considering what other matters ought to be included in the code in pursuance of sub-paragraph (ii) shall have special regard to programmes broadcast when large numbers of children and young persons may be expected to be watching".
These words will strengthen the Bill. It is what we have asked for.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had weakened his position when he altered the Clause. It is not only violence. Many thousands of parents are deeply concerned about moral behaviour and the other matters affecting the behaviour of the community, about which Pilkington reported. My natural tendency is to say we do not want to accept Lords Amendments. However, on this occasion I am bound to admit that it is not only violence. I hope that there will be a code, that it will be stronger than that which the B.B.C. has, and that it will cover not only violence but other forms of behaviour. The Lords have done well to suggest this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6.—(COMMITTEE AND PANEL TO ADVERTISE ON ADVERTISEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 5, at end insert:
(3A) Before appointing a person to be the chairman of the said committee, the Authority shall satisfy themselves that that person—

(a) will have no financial or other interest in any advertising agency, and
(b) will have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice his independence as chairman;
and the Authority shall also satisfy themselves from time to time that the chairman of the said committee has no such interest as is described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment was tabled in another place to fulfil an undertaking that I gave to the House earlier that the Government would try to find a form of words which would make the independence from advertising of the Chairman of the Authority's Advertising


Advisory Committee a statutory obligation. I hope that the House will feel that the form of words we have improvised is as satisfactory as it can be made.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Postmaster-General has gone a long way towards meeting the points raised in Committee and he appears to have fulfilled the pledge which he gave. However, I am not altogether satisfied that he has gone as far as we expected.
It must be remembered that we are concerned with the chairman of the Advertising Advisory Committee. It was originally the intention that he should be completely impartial or that, if he had any partiality, it would be in favour of the public interest and not with the interests of either advertisers or programme contractors. In view of the new duties that have been placed on this Committee—the introduction of a new code, the watching of the times of advertising, its limit, nature and so on—it is important that its chairman should be completely impartial and divorced from all advertising interests.
The Amendment states that
…the authority shall satisfy themselves that that person—
(a) will have no financial or other interest in any advertising agency…
This shows that an advertising agent as such is excluded. In sub-paragraph (b), however, there is a clarification of this, for we read:
…will have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice his independence as chairman.
The two sub-paragraphs appear to be somewhat contradictory. We learn, first, that he can be engaged in advertising, but not as an advertising agent—although how he can be engaged in some form of advertising without being an advertising agent mystifies me—while in the second paragraph we learn that he must
…have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice his independence as chairman.
We want it made clear that the person to be the chairman will be neither an

advertising agent nor have any interest in advertising as such. It is for this reason that I would like the Postmaster-General to clarify the distinction that appears to exist between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).

Mr. W. R. Williams: I do not see in the Amendment some of the difficulties envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). The Amendment is designed to make perfectly sure that the chairman has no direct or indirect interest in advertising. I am assuming that that means exactly what it says—that another place and the Postmaster-General have gone to some trouble to ensure that there is no escape Clause for the chairman and that he must be completely neutral and unbiased; and not only be so, but appear to be so.
We are glad that the proposed committee is to be appointed. There is good reason for it to be established in its proposed form because we want advertising to be added to the interest of television—for it to be good in substance and in form, to be honest and for there to be integrity between the sellers and consumers of goods. We are satisfied that with the conflicting interests that are bound to arise between consumers and advertisers, it is essential that the chairman should be above suspicion and out of any battle, so to speak, that he should be outside the ring of controversy and that his neutrality should be manifest throughout the committee.
This is a move in the right direction. The main objective of the chairman should be to make sure that advertising adds to the interest and entertainment of television and not, as has so often happened in the past, distract from its value and put over to viewers things that are, and can be proved to be, absolutely dishonest and untrue. We therefore hope that the chairman will be a strong-minded man who will ensure that there is a distinct improvement in advertising.
Just as a little dig at the Postmaster-General, I would say that had we known that an Amendment was to be moved calling for a supremely unbiased, unattached chairman, we on this side might have put down a similar Amendment to make sure that we got the same type of chairman for the I.T.A.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Subject to what the Postmaster-General may say, I warmly welcome the Amendment. I was one of those in the Committee who pressed for this provision, and we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that the Advertising Inquiry Council, with which I am associated and which made representations to the right hon. Gentleman, will also be very grateful.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether, under the new chairman, it is intended to reconstitute the Advertising Advisory Committee and, perhaps, remove some of the doctors who might more suitably be on the medical panel rather than on the main body. Some anxiety was expressed in Committee about the composition of the new committee and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone far enough to make clear by the wording of the Bill that the committee was to be representative of the public as consumers. We are very glad that the new director of the Consumer Council is to be a member of the committee—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this Amendment deals only with the chairman.

Mr. G. Roberts: I support the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) for clarification of a point that is troubling one or two of us. Paragraph (a), which states that the chairman
…will have no financial or other interests in any advertising agency…
seems to us to be an absolute restriction, but we think that paragraph (b), which states that he
…will have no such other financial or other interest in advertising as is in the opinion of the Authority likely to prejudice…
is a qualified restriction.
We feel that there should in this paragraph be the same absolute restriction as there is in (a), and that, to make absolutely sure that the chairman will be the independent person necessary for this work, he should be drawn from outside the advertising world altogether.

Mr. Bevins: By leave of the House, the first leg of the Amendment makes quite clear that the chairman of the

committee is not to have any interest of any kind in an advertising agency. I quite agree that the second leg is not quite as explicit and clear but that is in the nature of the case, because it is difficult to be completely specific about other aspects of advertising.
For example, a gentleman who was eminently suitable for this post might have limited investments in a bank or an insurance company which had a small number of shares in the advertisingworld—a very tenuous connection with it—and to impose a legal ban on anything other than an advertising agency is not, I should have thought, really workable. There might be a first-class person whose firm was engaged to some very marginal extent in advertising—probably through a financial interest—and it would be a pity to rule him out automatically if, on other grounds, he was the right person. But if at the same time a man who had no interest in an advertising agency were connected with a large firm which advertised extensively on television, like the Beecham Group or Hedley's, then quite clearly the intention here is that he would be ruled out.
The broad intention of the Government and of the Amendment is that the chairman should be a man who would not be swayed in his views by any personal interest in the advertising world. That is the criterion which we are asking the Authority to adopt. The Authority has already given me a very firm assurance that its intention is that the chairman of this important committee should be absolutely independent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(ADVERTISING AGENTS DIS- QUALIFIED FROM BEING PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 19, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 26 and insert:
For the purposes of this Act and the principal Act—

(a) a person shall not be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent, or as acting as such an agent, unless he carries on a business involving the selection and purchase of advertising space or time for persons wishing to advertise,
(b) a person who carries on such a business shall be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent irrespective of whether he is in law the agent of those for whom he acts.


(c) a person who is the proprietor of a newspaper shall not be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent by reason only that he makes arrangements on behalf of advertisers whereby advertisements appearing in the newspaper are also to appear in one or more other newspapers,"

The Assistant-Postmaster General (Mr. Ray Mawby): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient also to discuss the next two Amendments, in line 27, leave out "is not to" and insert "shall not" and in line 30, at end insert:
and any reference in this Act or the principal Act to an advertising agency shall be construed accordingly.
The purpose of the Amendments is to provide a more satisfactory definition of an advertising agent. We were not entirely satisfied with the definition in the Bill, but it was difficult to find a satisfactory definition which would not catch one type or another of quite legitimate activity. We think that the definition we now propose will be satisfactory in that it will give the I.T.A. an adequate statement of intention on which to base its decision whether or not the programme company is disqualified as a result of any indirect connection with advertising.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I think that we can say straight away, without wasting the time of the House, that we on this side approve the general terms of the Amendments. As the Assistant Postmaster-General has said, we have been concerned about finding what we would regard as a substantial definition to cover the points we had in mind and to ensure that the people whom we hoped would act in this capacity were of the right type and that we would be able to define that by statute. Unfortunately, neither the Postmaster-General nor we were able to find a satisfactory definition.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) that although I generally share his views about another place I think that since we injected a good number of Members with experience of this side of the Committee into the other place they have been working assiduously, particularly on this Bill, Everything they have done has improved what we had

done here. We are grateful to them. In the other place, with more leisure, they have been able to get down to definitions and they seem to have succeeded where we did not succeed earlier.
We are perfectly satisfied with paragraphs (a) and (b), but I have a sneaking doubt about paragraph (c). I do not know whether that doubt is shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It may be that I am prejudiced. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill I have been dead against newspapers having shareholdings in television. I have argued that it is not in the public interest that the two most important media of communication should be amalgamating in this form.
I am little worried about paragraph (c), which says that
a person who is the proprietor of a newspaper shall not be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent by reason only that he makes arrangements on behalf of advertisers whereby advertisements appearing in the newspaper are also to appear in one or more other newspapers,
It appears to me that in a degree we are treating newspapers rather exceptionally compared with the people with whom we are concerned in paragraphs (a) and (b). There is a lingering doubt in my mind whether this amalgamation should take place and whether if it does there should be any exceptional treatment for the Press. With these observations I think that I can say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that on the whole we think that the new wording is an improved definition on the wording in the Bill as it left the House.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), but I am a little alarmed at the proposed paragraph (c). I should like a little more explanation. The paragraph says:
a person who is the proprietor of a newspaper shall not be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent by reason only that he makes arrangements on behalf of advertisers whereby advertisements appearing in the newspaper are also to appear in one or more other newspapers,
Does that refer to one or other news papers owned by himself in the same group, or to any newspapers owned by any group? Does it mean that if the


newspaper proprietor advertises on his own public hoardings—which are unconnected with the newspaper concerned—he is thereby an advertising agent and is, therefore, excluded from becoming a contractor? In short, I want to know whether the newspaper proprietor who engages in advertising outside of his newspaper activities is debarred from becoming a programme contractor.
It seems to me that the formulation is not clear, and I should like some explanation, because, like my hon. Friend, I believe that the more we can keep newspaper proprietors out of this field the greater the variety of opinion that will be available and the less control there will be over the creation of opinion.

Mr. Mawby: By the leave of the House, we readily admit that this is and has been a problem to find a suitable form of words. It is important that we should have a form of words which does not automatically exclude a man whom we would not want disqualified.
With regard to the newspaper company which might pass on advertisements, we are thinking in terms of the small local newspaper which passes on a number of items to other newspapers, such as births, marriages and deaths announcements. We believe that it would be wrong to put into the Bill a provision which would debar from becoming a programme contractor a man who was carrying on a purely legitimate business, purely because he owned a small local newspaper and had some arrangement with other newspapers which was completely unrelated to television. We would not want him automatically to become disfranchised from becoming a programme contractor if all the other necessary conditions were fulfilled. I hope the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards)will appreciate that we have tried to meet this problem, and that this is the type of person to whom we refer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the other arm of the argument. If that is permitted, does it mean that advertising in media other than newspapers debars him from becoming a programme contractor?

Mr. Mawby: Paragraph (c) refers only to newspapers and their contacts with other newspapers. It is purely a matter

of contact between one newspaper and another.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16.—(PROGRAMMES RELATING TO CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 19, at end insert:
(2) In section 3(1) of the principal Act, paragraph (g) and the proviso (which, with certain exceptions, require matter designed to serve the interests of any political party to be excluded from the programmes broadcast by the Authority) shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in page23, line 18, column 3, after "(1)" insert ",in paragraph" and line 21, column 3, after "person'" insert "and the whole of paragraph (g) and the proviso", both of which are consequential to this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We can by all means discuss them, if the House so wishes.

Mr. Bevins: I must take a moment or two of the time of the House on this Amendment which is designed to put the I.T.A. on a more satisfactory basis in respect of political broadcasting. The Amendment may appear to be a little complicated, but, in fact, is is quite simple.
As the 1954 Act stands, the Authority has the option of taking or of not taking the annual series of party political broadcasts. In practice, the Authority always takes these broadcasts, and it has given me an assurance that it will always do so. It has been generally agreed by all three political parties in this House and by the B.B.C. and the Authority that the B.B.C's label in the proviso to Section 3(1,g) of the 1954 Act ought to be removed, and that, I think, is right. That is the reference to the "British Broadcasting Corporation party political broadcasts", which is no longer in present circumstances quite appropriate, and it is proposed that that should come out.
Secondly, the effect of Clause 16,before this Amendment is perhaps added


to it, is to allow the Authority to secure impartiality, as the B.B.C. is already allowed to do, over the series of programmes rather than in one individual programme. This also, I am happy to say, has been agreed by all three parties in this House. But it remains true that if we were to retain Section 3(1,g) in the 1954 Act, with its two provisos, it might inhibit the effect of Clause 16 and we are proposing the deletion of Section 3(1,g) in the 1954 Act. I think that that is right.
What remains is Section 3(1,f) in the 1954 Act, which requires impartiality in matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to public Clause 16 that impartiality can be secured over a series of programmes. I hope that the House has followed this rather devious argument, but I am quite sure that it is right.

Mr. Willey: Whether or not the House has followed the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, I hasten to emphasise that the three parties have agreed that this is a desirable Amendment. I think that this is a matter in which the parties should act only unanimously, and I am delighted that in this case they are unanimous.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 25, at end insert:
Provision of experimental educational service outside programme contracts
4.—(1) In section 2(2), at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words
'and
(c) with the consent of the Postmaster General, arrange for the provision, otherwise than by programme contractors, of educational broadcasting services of an experimental nature to be broadcast in addition to educational programmes provided for the purpose of the public service referred to in section 2(1)(a) of the Television Act 1963 by programme contractors,'.
(2) So much of section 4(6) as prohibits the inclusion in programmes (other than advertisements) broadcast by the Authority of anything which could reasonably be supposed to have been included therein in return for payment or other valuable consideration to the Authority shall not apply to any programme so broadcast in an educational service provided under section 2(2)(c).

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I believe that the purpose of this Amendment is reasonably well known both to my hon. Friends and to right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Shortly, it is to enable the Authority, if at any time it is so decided, itself to experiment in educational television. It in no sense frustrates the British Broadcasting Corporation from doing likewise. It simply gives the Authority power to do so if it be so decided in the future.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Whether we regard this as an exception or as a rule will accord with our views on another place, but I feel that I should say that this is an instance in which bicameral legislation proves itself. This is a matter which we discussed consistently in our consideration of the Bill. We were not able to get an Amendment, and we are greatly obliged to Lord Eccles for proposing this Amendment in another place.
I think that it is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the I.T.A. should not be discouraged from conducting experiments in educational broadcasting. I hope that the Amendment will prove an encouragement to the I.T.A. and that the right hon. Gentleman himself will encourage the I.T.A. in this matter. There is great scope for experiment here. Proposals have been made, for instance, by the Queen's University of Belfast. There is an opportunity here, and I hope that it will be taken. We are greatly obliged to Lord Eccles for the initiative which he showed, and I hope that there will be a profitable outcome in educational television.

Mr. Mason: I support my hon. Friend in welcoming the Amendment. The Postmaster-General ought to do his utmost to encourage independent television to start experimenting with educational programmes. A great deal can be done during the day to provide classical educational programmes for primary, junior and senior schools. Indeed, there is a fortune to be made by the script writer and film producer who can produce the material for these three types of schools, as text-books have been produced in the past, which can be used year


after year for each succeeding stream of pupils going through the schools.
I hope that there will be experiments also not only in educational broadcasting strictly so called but in programmes for minority audiences. For instance, deaf children and deaf adults are not well catered for by television, and both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. could do more. The experiments they have tried so far have been rather amateurish and childish. I feel that a lot more could be done for the minority audience of deaf people, and I hope that this Amendment will give the opportunity.
The Postmaster-General has, no doubt, been worrying a good deal about the introduction of pay television. Here again, a lot can be done. Pay television could meet the needs of a lot of minority audiences, whether by teaching people to play the guitar, teaching them to play bridge, teaching them languages, or whatever it might be. If independent television began to satisfy minorities by putting out suitable programmes, there would be no need to begin the spread of pay television. I hope that work will be undertaken in educational broadcasting and in instructional programmes as well.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the intention behind this proposal. I think that is an exceptional break through. There are considerable periods during the day when television could be used for this purpose. However, it is a break through in a new way. It gives the Authority, outside the programme contractors, power to make this provision. How will it do this? Will it produce the educational programme, or will it contract with some public body or private corporation to produce the programme?
I should like to know what will come within this sphere. In the way that the Amendment is drafted, there is no limit on what can be done. There is no fixed time, and, in that sense, it is an open-ended provision. The authority may use all the time when programme contractors are not using the transmitting instruments for these educational experiments, which may grow.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), I should like some

clarification of what will be in these educational programmes. If the Authority does not undertake the work itself but engages outside bodies to do it, may we know whether they will be profit-making bodies or corporations? Will the educational films produced for prestige purposes by the Steel Company of Wales, I.C.I., Lever Bros., Wimpey and the oil companies be pushed in as part of the educational programme for which the Authority can make a charge to the corporation which produced the film?
What I am afraid of is that the excellent intention behind the experiment may eventually drift into a bit of underhanded sponsored television. That is the sort of thing which we must guard against. In Committee upstairs, I sought to warn some of my hon. Friends not to get sponsored television in under the umbrella of educational television. I should like to hear the Postmaster-General's views on these points. In general, I welcome the intention. All I hope is that we shall guard against the perhaps remote possibilities which I have mentioned.

Mr. Bevins: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, may I add a few words in reply to what has been said.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that, if it were decided in future that there should be an experiment in educational television, the Authority is not precluded from taking part in it. The Amendment says that the Authority may,
with the consent of the Postmaster-General, arrange for the provision
of these programmes other than by the existing or future programme contractors.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) asked who would arrange these programmes. They would, no doubt, be arranged by the Authority in collaboration with the educational authorities of various kinds—the schools, perhaps the local authorities, perhaps the universities, perhaps the W.E.A. I should have thought that it was most unlikely that it would collaborate with profit-making bodies. It is desirable that the wording of the Amendment should be as wide as possible to allow educational programmes in their widest sense to be disseminated.
May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for what he said. We are indebted to Lord Eccles for moving this Amendment in another place. It has the enthusiastic support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and, I believe, of hon. Members on both sides. We must be venturesome and forward-looking in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Title

Lords Amendment: In line 10, leave out from first "Authority" to end of line 11.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: On a point of order. I should like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. During the Report stage of the Bill, I put down an Amendment to the Title. That Amendment was not accepted. Since then, the Title of the Bill has been amended in another place. May I be informed why an Amendment which was put down in the Commons and refused is afterwards accepted in another place and the Bill is changed on the lines on which I wanted it to be amended?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that, although I do not remember it, I must in the exercise of my powers and duties, for good reasons, have declined to select the hon. Member's Amendment. I know nothing about what is done in another place. If their Lordships suggest an Amendment which comes back here, this House then considers it. That is the position.

Mr. Mawby: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments to Clause 18 which had the effect of removing my right hon. Friend's powers under that Clause to require the B.B.C. to co-operate with the I.T.A. in the provision and use of broadcasting installations and to confine my right hon. Friend's powers to give directions solely to the I.T.A. Similar powers are to be written into the B.B.C.'s Licence as being the proper place for obligations to be imposed upon the Corporation.

Mr. Willey: I rise only because my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) showed an interest in this Amendment. It is with alacrity that I rise to defend the Government. We are delighted to see the Leader of the House present. He expressed the view some time ago that we might improve the Bill. We have worked hard upon it in both Houses and we have considerably improved it.
In view of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, we from these benches have a responsibility for the Amendment. However important or unimportant it is, it is consequential upon certain Amendments which we moved and which were accepted by the Postmaster-General. In view of this, I hope that my hon. Friend will not be unduly critical.

Mr. Mason: It is not my intention to be critical, but as
including relations between the Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation
has been taken out of the Title, I would expect the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General to have made it plain at the Box tonight that this is not because friction exists between the two Authorities. Indeed, Clause 18 of the Bill specifically relates to co-operation with the B.B.C. That is why this phrase was originally in the Title. In view of the fact that almost at the eleventh hour of our long proceedings on the Bill the Postmaster-General should withdraw these words, we should have a satisfactory explanation before the Title is allowed to be changed.
Clause 18 specifically relates to the joint use of installations, masts, booster towers, and so on, that will be necessary between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Clause15 deals with audience research. It may be necessary at some time for the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to co-operate on audience research or audience reaction throughout the whole country and not solely among people who, they think, are watching their own programmes.
On Clause 17, concerning experimental transmissions, it is essential that there should be co-operation between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. It may be necessary for the I.T.A. to put out colour transmissions with the co-operation of the B.B.C. All I ask of the Postmaster-General is to state clearly before the


Title is changed that no friction exists, that relations are good and will continue like this and that it is absolutely necessary for the betterment of television as a whole that they should.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this Lords Amendment because I think that many Members, if not all of us, will agree the Bill should protect the I.T.A., though no doubt the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), whose constructive suggestions throughout the proceedings on the Bill I have been most interested to hear, will have the thanks of the B.B.C. I hope that in future on every occasion when we discuss television we shall be able to collaborate in the same constructive way as we have done in the past. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this Lords Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: He moved that the House should.

Mr. Bevins: May I extend my sympathy to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) who sought to do precisely this at a certain stage of the Bill's passage through this House—and also to myself, who also tried very valiantly to have the Title changed? I think I ought to leave it at that, except perhaps to add that I am quite sure that the relations between the B.B.C. and the Authority are far happier and more cordial and co-operative than I have ever known them.

Question put and agreed to.

PEERAGE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(DISCLAIMER OF CERTAIN HEREDITARY PEERAGES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 10, leave out "six" and insert "twelve".

9.42 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Because I think that the first Lords Amendment and the second, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "six" and to insert "twelve" are really consequential upon the third, which is to leave out Clause

7(2), I shall be grateful, if it were possible, if we could discuss all three together, because I do not think that we could have a coherent debate in other circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, if the House so pleases.

Mr. Macleod: Then it would be right for me to say that I intend, as we come formally to the other Lords Amendments, to suggest that the House doth agree with them. There is a special reason for considering these three together, because their lordships felt that the first two were consequential upon the third, and indeed they were not moved in Committee, so that another place might have an opportunity of seeing what happened to the main one, which was to delete Clause 7(2) from the Bill. Certainly for myself I would not put the first two Lords Amendments in isolation to the House, but as a consequence related to the deletion of that subsection (2). If the House agrees with the Lords on that, I think they have considerable force.
It would be right for me to direct my remarks straight away to the main issue, which is to leave out that subsection (2). This would have the effect of bringing this Bill into operation on Royal Assent, which could be tomorrow, instead of at any time up to 15 months from now, and I recommend this to the House for reasons which the House will, and quite rightly, find conflicting. Personally, I believe that the judgment of another place on this matter is, in fact, wrong, but then they, after all, thought mine was, so that is even so far as that is concerned.
There is one matter I think it right to make plain in case there should be any misunderstanding. It was said in another place that there was a clear, plain understanding in the Joint Select Committee—although nothing was expressed—that this Bill would come into operation on the Royal Assent. I am confident from inquiries that I have made that that was at least not the unanimous opinion of those who served on the Joint Select Committee, although it may well be that many, and perhaps most, of those who served thought accordingly; and if so, there was a genuine misunderstanding. But it is clear, as I emphasised to the House on 27th June, that there is no agreement on this mat-


ter and it does not form any part of what has often been called "a package deal".
I do not want to hack over the ground of the precedents again, but I do not think that precedents in relation to the powers of another place are relevant, because the whole purpose of any such Bill is to bring it into operation as early as possible, nor even to the composition of another place, particularly if, as in the Life Peerage Bill, it is permissive, because dissolution to another place, with the exception of the Scottish representative peers, is not the watershed that it is for Members of Parliament, and, therefore, the date of dissolution of Parliament has nothing like the same significance in another place as it has here.
The question, then, is simply whether it is worth having a dispute between the two Houses on this matter. I am bound to say that I think not. There is one very practical reason for this. This is Tuesday of the last week before we rise, and if we were to disagree and go into the procedure which is laid down for disagreement, we might lose the Bill, and that would be a very barren use of Parliamentary time. It is quite true that minor problems will arise—I mentioned some of them myself—on the Clause which relates to Scottish peerage and perhaps the Clause that relates to peeresses in their own right, but these are problems essentially for another place, and if they are content with those difficulties, I do not see that we need concern ourselves with them.
To go back from the main Amendment, the third Amendment, to the first two Amendments, the question, then, is whether if the House agrees with the Lords Amendment to delete subsection (2) and to bring the Bill into operation on Royal Assent, we should also adopt the first two Amendments. They would give a sitting peer 12 instead of six months from the commencement of the Bill, or, in the case of a sitting peer who is then a minor, from attaining the age of 21, in which to disclaim. It would then equate the position of those under 21 in relation to Clause 1(2) with those under Clause 1(3). I think there is some justice in accepting these as a consequence of the third, and major, proposal.
So, perhaps partly because of my natural Highland obstinacy, but without altering my own opinions on these matters, I cannot believe that this is an issue on which it is worth—hon. Members must realise that this would be the natural consequence, almost certainly, of a disagreement on this—disagreeing with their Lordships at the cost of losing the Bill. There is a great deal of history behind this Bill. Both Houses were represented in the Joint Committee whose recommendations are enshrined in it. These Amendments are the only ones made to the Bill. No Amendments were made in this House, and only these have been made in another place. I think, in view of that, that it would be appropriate to accept them.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman is an engaging speaker. He well realises a certain absurdity in the Government's position in this matter and his frank approach to it, I am sure, endeared him to every one on this side of the House. But it really is rather funny. Some people, of course, are born penitent—not the Tory Party. Others become penitent—the Government certainly find that very difficult. Others, again, have penitence thrust upon them—and I am not even certain that the right hon. Gentleman falls into that last category.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, in justice, that, if penitence be thrust upon us, it is thrust upon us by the Tory Party.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think that that is so. I do not think that I should be in order in going into the composition of the majority in the other place, but it certainly included all the Labour peers who were there. I will not go into the nice mathematics of what would have happened if one group or another had been omitted from the total.
The standard defence, or the last ditch, as one might call it, or perhaps the first fence, in the defence of another place as a constitutional institution is that one of is functions is to enable the Government to make last minute amendments on comparatively small points in a Bill. This is a case where the Government, according to the right hon. Gentleman or the Tory Party—I am not quite certain which is which in this connection—appear to have made some Amendments.
Can I really say that they come from the Government themselves? I followed what I may refer to as the Government's arguments on this matter. They have always been a little thin. He himself tells us that there were a mass of precedents. The matter was very fully dealt with, as usual, by the Lord Chancellor in another place. He cited five precedents. He then told us that only two were relevant and he omitted the only one which really matters, which, in view of the arguments about this, is probably the Life Peerages Act.
Be that as it may, it was one argument. The other argument was the curious one put forward by the Attorney-General. It was that, having had a Parliament on one basis, we must keep to that basis until the end of it. But the Life Peerages Act is a complete answer to that contention, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has pointed out previously.
The Government's arguments, therefore, were quite remarkably thin. I think that we can all agree on that. But the will of the Government was nothing of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman accepted a Division on this Amendment when it came before the House originally, and the House as a whole decided against it. He said he would consider the matter when it came to another place, or that further consideration would be given to it.
We know that phrase, but what is remarkable is that not only the same governmental decisions but exactly the same reasons for it were trotted put in another place by those who spoke there for the Government. Therefore, it is fair to say, whether the Government have been right or wrong about this, that they have been at any rate consistent until now. Now they are bowing to this somewhat absurd, enforced penitence—should I call it that, or call it change of mind or alteration? I do not know what the right word is for the situation. But they are going to yield to another place on it.
There is not much more that one can say about it. We can all crack our own jokes, but it is rather funny that the Government, having stuck for the same reasons to an untenable position both here and elsewhere, have finally to give in to a non-elected assembly on a point which seems to me to concern this

House far more than it concerns another place, because the substantial point, as speakers have pointed out in the discussion, is the convenience of the people particularly concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Bill is badly needed. There are two obvious groups of people who need it badly. One is Mr. Wedgwood Benn, or however I should describe him, and the other is the electors of Bristol, South-East, who have been quite consistent through all this. The earliest possible moment should, therefore, be taken to give them the opportunity to bring into effect that to which it is intended to give effect by the Bill in their case.
I agree that the other Amendments are less important. There is a certain logic in them, although the connection with the Amendment to delete subsection (2) is a trifle thin if one looks into it. We are giving people twelve months instead of six months in which to disclaim an hereditary peerage which is not of the first creation—that is to say, existing hereditary peers. I do not see the close connection; in fact, I see little connection between that and the other Amendment.
I wonder whether this is an indication that the Government have made up their mind that if they gave only six months it might not give sufficient time to bring them right up to the next General Election before they made their disclaimer. What is the reason for it? One has had a feeling throughout the whole of the Bill that these points about time have been connected with some mysterious operation in the mind of the Government and the Conservative Party. This may or may not be true, and it is a pity that this impression has been given. But I am glad that the main Amendment is to be made. We shall not contest the others. We find the Government giving way to our view as expressed in the House—and as upheld by all the Labour Lords in another place, if I may say so, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. M. A. J. St. Clair: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for calling me so that I can personally welcome the Amendment to leave out subsection (2). It seems to me much more logical and sensible to bring


the provisions of the Bill into effect when it receives the Royal Assent.
As the person perhaps most closely concerned with the whole question, may I in a minute or two—and I assure the House that it will be only a minute or two—deal with my own personal position? When I came here two years ago as a result of a petition in the High Court, I was, and for that matter still am, legally the Member of Parliament for Bristol, South-East, and I have tried to carry out my duties in that respect according to the best of my lights.
However, the House may also remember that two years ago I wrote to the former Member of Parliament for Bristol, South-East saying that I would apply to resign my seat in the House should certain facts be fulfilled, one of which was that the law was so changed that he became eligible to stand again. There was thus both a legal and a moral issue. Legally I considered myself right to sit here—and morally so while he was disqualified. However, it now appears that the law is to be changed almost immediately, perhaps tomorrow or the next day. I intend very shortly indeed to apply to resign my seat in the House.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Donald Wade: I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. St. Clair) on the decision he has reached. Whatever one's views may be about the Wedgwood Benn case, I am sure the hon. Member in making the statement which we have just heard has acted wisely and honourably, and we admire him for it.
I have only a very few comments to make. I am not sure whether the speech of the Leader of the House can be regarded as one of penitence or as merely an illustration of the uncomfortable experience of having to eat one's own words, as to which I do not think it is of great importance. So far as I recollect, the assumption of many members of the Select Committee was that it was

intended that this Bill should come into operation on the Royal Assent, although I agree there were no specific recommendations to that effect.
I wish to take issue with the Leader of the House on one point. He seemed to argue that we ought to accept these Amendments because it would be unwise to become involved in a dispute between the two Houses. I hope that is not to be a precedent and that we shall not always be asked to accept Amendments from another place because the result of not accepting them would involve us in dispute. We should accept these Amendments on their merits. The Leader of the House said he thought the judgment of another place was wrong. I disagree with him on that. I and my colleagues voted for this proposal in this House, and I noticed that the Leader of the Liberal Party in another place voted for the Amendment which is now before us.
I make this point on the merits. It would have been a very anomalous position for a member of another place, still being a member of another place and not being entitled until a General Election arrived to take advantage of the Bill, to become adopted for a constituency while still being a peer. That, I think, was the heart of the case for this Amendment. It is very much better, if a peer is to take advantage of this Bill, that he should be entitled to do so as soon as this Bill receives the Royal Assent. I have no idea how many noble Lords will wish to take advantage of this Bill. I imagine there will not be very many. One of the curious results of this Bill is that the total number of hereditary peers with a seat in the Legislature will be increased, not decreased, because of other provisions of the Bill, to which I cannot refer in discussion of this Amendment.
I think that on the merits—not because we wish to avoid a dispute with another place—this is a wise Amendment, which I hope will be accepted.

Mr. Michael Foot: I join with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) in congratulating the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. St. Clair) on the decision he has taken and the way in which he announced it before this Bill ever came to the stage it has now reached.
The hon. Member also deserves some commiseration, because when he agreed to be a candidate for that constituency the policy of the Government on this subject was quite different from the policy they have subsequently accepted. The hon. Member is in the position of many other people, not only in this country but all over the world, who have found themselves let down by the present Government. I do not need to go through the whole list—that would be a very tedious thing to do tonight—but he was evidently brought here on false pretences. He was given assurances and understandings as to the policy of the Government. It is unfortunate that he should have had to suffer the consequences of their change. Even he could not know—none of us could have foreseen—the change which has recently occurred.
I do not know what it is that brings so many hon. Members into the House at this moment. It must be a sadistic streak in our make-up. I thought that the Leader of the House did the job about as well as it could be done. He was in his best sedative mood. The only error he made was to refer to his Highland obstinacy. If Highland obstinacy had been of the same intensity as he has shown on the Bill, the Act of Union would have gone through in the days of Robert Bruce.
The right hon. Gentleman was very ill-advised to refer to his Highland obstinacy. It is his willowy nature that the House is paying tribute to in these discussions. I have always watched the right hon. Gentleman's career with great interest. I advised him in the first place not to take on the job that he now has. He would not listen to me then, but I am sure that he has agreed with me with every month that has passed. If only he had stuck to an honest job, he would not now be in this position. However, the right hon. Gentleman was determined to have his way and go on with the extraordinary occupation he has had for the last few years. He lands up in the extraordinary situation on the penitent stool where he now finds himself. That is the kindest thing said about the right hon. Gentleman so far.
This is a most remarkable event. I want to acquit the Leader of the House altogether of the charges which were falsely made against him in the earlier

debates. Some people said that the Bill had something to do with the leadership of the Conservative Party. When the suggestion was made, the right hon. Gentleman resented it and said that the Bill had no political considerations whatsoever in it and that that had never occurred to any of them.
I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. I personally do not think that anybody ever took Lord Hailsham's candidature seriously. I have never met anybody who really thought that: Lord Hailsham should be the Leader of the Conservative Party. I have always had another name in mind. I do not wish to do any candidate any damage by giving him my recommendation, but Hinchingbrooke is the man I have always wanted to be the Leader of the Conservative Party. He has my full and sustained backing. If the Bill were to enable him to enter the lists against the other myriad contenders I think that it would add to the attraction of the Bill. Personally, I am prepared to discuss the Measure on the constitutional terms on which the Government have always sought to present it to the House.
As to whether the Bill should come into operation immediately, or whether it should wait until the General Election, there is no doubt that the Government thought that they had an overwhelming case. Indeed, the Government thought that they had such an overwhelming case that they trusted its exposition to the Attorney-General. They thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could tell the House exactly why we should accept the proposal that they were making. The Leader of the House himself, in an aberration, because I have a different explanation of his conduct in the whole matter, said in Committee that he thought the arguments were overwhelmingly in favour of what he was proposing in the Clause—not merely the precedents, but the arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman did not quite give us that impression tonight. If this is the way in which he presents an overwhelming argument, or even the way in which he withdraws an overwhelming argument, we would like to see him on thin ice for a change. The right hon. Gentleman made some other most extraordinary statements that should not pass without some recognition. He


rather gave the impression that, if we did bring the Bill into operation immediately, if we went so far as to say that the Bill were to be brought into operation immediately, it might get us into trouble with the other place.
That was his argument on 27th June. He said:
There was no agreement upon this point and, therefore, there would be no breach of agreement in my view, although I do not know what view another place would take if we changed it".
The obvious suggestion there was that one had better be careful not to insist on carrying through the proposal of the Opposition Front Bench because it might cause trouble in another place, which shows just how sensitive are the antennae of the Leader of the House in his knowledge of what goes on in the Palace of Westminster. He knows, it appears, what is going on everywhere.
A little later in his remarks on 27th June the right hon. Gentleman, now in a magnanimous mood, said:
Of course, we can see that this is studied again in another place. I gladly agree to that".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 1723–28].
That was not exactly the impression of the Government spokesman in another place and it was not an exactly mirthful Lord Chancellor who received the news in another place. The most remarkable statement made by the Leader of the House on 27th June was to the effect that he would see that the matter was considered in another place. And so he did. The Leader of the House went to work to ensure that the overwhelming case he had presented to the House of Commons should be presented in another place as well.
The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that the wisest course for us would be not to quarrel with another place, that it would cause difficulties and that we should not, therefore, engage in any further dispute over the matter. From his point of view we should all agree, for that is the only way to settle it. But I have quite a different explanation of the whole extraordinary circumstances which have surrounded this Measure. It is all very well for hon. Members to put it out of their minds, but it is fair to say that for four or

five years the Conservative Party—almost all Members opposite with a few honourable exceptions—have though that it would be impossible to carry this Measure through for enabling peers to disclaim their peerages. They have said that it would cause grave constitutional results, upset the hereditary system and injure the monarchy. These claims were made and accepted by hon. Members opposite. When the previous Leader of the House, the present First Secretary of State, made this kind of claim, it was accepted by most of the hon. Members opposite who are in their places tonight.
It is for these reasons that we should give credit to the present Leader of the House. He was the man who changed all this. Upon becoming Leader of the House he saw that it was absolute tomfoolery to suggest that people should not be allowed to renounce their peerages. He looked through the speeches of his predecessor and was more convinced than ever of the folly of such a claim. We must, therefore, give credit to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, for being the man who went to the Cabinet and persuading it to change its mind, getting it to turn a somersault and to agree to enable the disclaiming of peerages to take place.
Having done all this, the right hon. Gentleman put his proposals before the House of Commons and, it should be mentioned, had great difficulty in persuading us. By that I mean that there was some difficulty in getting some hon. Members opposite to trail along. Thus far the right hon. Gentleman was going swimmingly. Then, much to his annoyance, when it came to the Second Reading he made a rather non-committal speech on the issue of whether or not the Bill should come into operation at the time we are discussing. He was by no means emphatic in his opening speech, but when the Attorney-General replied at the end of the debate, he slammed the door, said that it was opposed to all precedent and that there was an overwhelming case against it, and that for this reason nothing could be done about the matter.
The Leader of the House had thus far gallantly gone on with the matter and had got hon. Members committed to the proposition. Then it was said that there


were overwhelming grounds for not bringing the Measure into operation before the General Election. What did the Leader of the House do? Some people underrate him. Speaking personally, I have been sorry to see him falling behind in the stakes for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Indeed, some people underrate his capacity for intrigue.
What did he do? He said, "All right, if they will not accept my proposition in the House of Commons I will see how I can upset them in the House of Lords." So he went to his old friend, Lord Salisbury, and said, "Let us get together on this proposition. You have plenty of good grievances against the Government—and particularly against Macmillan—and so have I. Let us combine and upset them, and make them all look fools." The manoeuvre worked brilliantly, so brilliantly that though one might have thought that there would be a narrow majority in another place, the rumour of intrigue spread through those musty corridors and the majority was about four to one.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman can do when he sets his mind to it. He should be more courageous in future about showing his ambition. Unfortunately, hon. Members opposite are the only people who look silly; but he takes it very mildly. This is the squarest meal that he has had in this affluent age; he is never likely to have one of such proportions again.
So the plot is all revealed, and the only people made to look indescribably foolish are hon. Members opposite, because they are proposing to accept the exact opposite to the proposition they accepted only a few weeks ago. But they do not turn a hair—they do not care what they vote for. The Leader of the House says, "Vote this way"—and vote that way they do. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his great achievement, the convulsion that he has worked in another place, and the fact that all these minions will take his orders: why does he not have a little more ambition? Why does he not enter the stakes—

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman take note that

a great many hon. Members on this side did not vote, and would not vote, given a chance?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we had better get back to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Foot: I acquit any hon. Member who did not vote for the Government on the proposition we discussed originally. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) must fight it out with all his colleagues next to him, because they were guilty of the crime I have put on the charge sheet. But the hon. Member is acquitted in that sense, and that only underlines the offence committed by all the others.
The Leader of the House has carried out a great stroke of policy. In the news papers and in the Gallup polls he only gets 1 per cent., or even ½ per cent. of support on the leadership question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, in our enjoyment of what he was saying, did not hear me. I said that we had better get back to the Lords Amendment, which in no way depends on the progress of the right hon. Gentleman in the current Gallup polls.

Mr. Foot: It would be a very tragic thing, Mr. Speaker, if, after I have accorded this great victory to the right hon. Gentleman and bestowed all the laurels on the right hon. Gentleman, you should snatch it away. He has only possessed the crown for a minute. However, I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, and wish the right hon. Gentleman the best of all good fortune in any further retractions he may make. I think that he has shown wonderful skill tonight. This may be the turning point in his career. If only he could recover that honest job that I suggest he should never have left, nothing should stand between him and the highest offices in the State—if,indeed. they remain available to the party opposite.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

TRANSPORT NEEDS (RESEARCH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]

11.38 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: At the end of April we had a two-day debate on transport. There is something to be said for the view that we spent two days debating the wrong Report. Dr. Beeching's proposals for the future of the railways are certainly far-reaching and controversial, but discussion of the railways makes sense only in the context of the future of transport as a whole, and that is why I should have liked to see the House find some time to discuss Sir Robert Hall's Report on the transport needs of Great Britain in the Next Twenty Years. Not only have we not discussed this Report but there was hardly more than a couple of references to it during the whole of the Beeching debate. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity, not to deal with the Hall Report as a whole, but to take further some points which it raises about transport research.
What I very much hope for from the Parliamentary Secretary is that in his reply he will place on record a much clearer picture than we now have of the research which is going on into transport needs and also of future plans for research. There have been times in the past when the Ministry's attitude towards research was, to say the least, equivocal. I recall, for example, the remarks of the then Permanent Secretary, Sir Gilmour Jenkins, before the Select Committee on Estimates in 1952–53. He said,
The best kind of research
—he was asked about his attitude towards research on roads—
is experience on the job".
That seems to me an original but rather odd definition. Further asked whether his Department had ever urged the Treasury to make more funds available for research, he said, "No, certainly not."
Times change and during the régime of his successor there was, I think, a

feeling among transport experts outside that a breath of fresh air was blowing through the dusty corridors of the Ministry. It was, if I may change the metaphor, getting to grips for the first time with the twentieth century. But, of course, tradition dies hard, and it is no reflection on the present Ministry to say that there is a very difficult job of catching up on the wasted years, particularly when the pressure of immediate transport problems is so very great, as we all agree. But it is not clear exactly what research is being carried on and under whose auspices and that proper use is being made of transport experts in the universities and elsewhere.
I am not concerned this evening primarily with either traffic engineering or with the technical research being carried on in each transport field, for example, the research which the Road Research Laboratory has been doing for a long time. I am concerned with economic studies. Perhaps I may be allowed in passing to ask one question only of the Parliamentary Secretary. In answer to a Parliamentary Question on 27th February last, the Minister said that adequate facilities existed in the universities for post-graduate training in highway and traffic engineering. The need, he said, was to stimulate the demand for these places. We certainly need more traffic engineers. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to say what his Ministry is doing to encourage people to take up these studies and whether any special incentives are being provided.
Turning to the economic studies in transport, there are, as there always are, both the long-term and short-term problems. The Hall Report pinpoints this. Perhaps "pinpoints" is not quite the right word, because it is all rather confused and muddled. In paragraph 73 the Hall Report speaks of two fundamental problems and then goes on to list five.
I am not going to argue the Report on that. It may be a hotch-potch, but out of the hotch-potch emerges a question which is a good one. It is the


question of the total long-term investment in transport which is required to achieve the minimum target of a 4 per cent. economic growth, including the regional distribution of this investment. This is the crux of the matter as far as transport policy is concerned. We must be planning at least 20 years ahead, as the title of the Hall Report implies.
What we want to know is what sort of transport system we shall need in the 1980's and 1990's and what distribution of population and industry it will be required to serve. This is not an academic approach or a visionary one. The under-developed areas of the world in their decisions about their economic and industrial structure certainly look at least as far ahead and no transport planner worthy of his name summoned to Karachi or Accra would dare to start work on transport without finding out the answers to these basic economic questions of development. Nor would he think his job was properly done unless he had succeeded in outlining a plan of a transport system which would reach its peak of efficiency in 20 or perhaps 25 years ahead.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say exactly what research is being carried out in this field of essential strategic transport planning. Perhaps at this point I could also ask him three questions about short-term issues. In March the Minister promised that further studies would be commissioned into the development and application of cost-benefit techniques. Could we know what has since been done?
In March also the Minister said that he was actively considering how studies on the costs incurred by transport operators can best contribute to the development of transport policy. Here, again, can we know how far active consideration has gone?
Finally, on these short term issues, at the beginning of April, in reply to a Question on the application of transport policy to industrial and residential development, the Minister said that this was being considered. Could we know from the Parliamentary Secretary how far consideration has gone? I am not asking for the results of the research—that would be nonsense as it would take years—but I should like to know if it

has begun. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take refuge tonight in the Buchanan Report. This has already become almost the passport of the Minister to a quiet life. "Wait for it" he says, as if when we have it all our problems will wither away. I am sure it is an admirable Report, but it deals with only one aspect of the problem and there are many others.
What about the means of getting this research done? I should like the hon. Gentleman to place some facts on record. What about his own Ministry? Is Sir Robert Hall still the Ministry's economic adviser and is he responsible for the long term strategic economic research, or is the Report all we are likely to get from him? What about Mr. Winston, who, I believe, is the statistical officer; what is his sphere of responsibility? What about the general division of the Ministry itself? I should like to know how many trained economists there are working in the division on research.
I shall be interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on this. I should have thought there was much to be said for having someone of deputy secretary level with a direct and continuing responsibility for research. I should like to think that there is always someone at the Minister's right hand. Until recently the Ministry has had the reputation for not showing a great deal of imagination and initiative in this field. Most of the enterprise has come from elsewhere. I should like to know how far this has been remedied.
This leads me to the rôle of the universities in economic transport problems. When one considers how much is spent on agricultural economics, the amount spent on transport economics is pitiful. Earlier this evening we had a debate on the White Fish Authority and my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) proposed an economic research unit into the question of white fish. I always have great respect for his views, but it would be ridiculous if we found ourselves spending more money on research to achieve leadership in the white fish industry than we were spending into research on transport. That is not so ridiculous a fear as it may sound.
In the universities there is the Institute of Transport endowment at Oxford and the Rees Jeffreys endowments at London


and in the Institute of Applied Economics at Cambridge. I would be surprised, however, if the total expenditure on transport economics in the universities is more than £25,000 a year. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me and give another figure. Can he also say whether money can be found in the new universities for this purpose and if he has discussed this matter with his colleagues?
An item appeared for the first tune in this year's Estimates. Under subhead F of the Transport Estimates there is £10 provided for research into transport economics, but so far as I know there has been no supplementary estimate for the financial year ending next April, and therefore there can be no expenditure on transport economics until April, 1964. This is disturbing. If that is so, why put in this item? Surely it is not because the Ministry cannot find a useful way of spending money on transport economics? On a very generous estimate, I would say that we are spending perhaps £100,000 a year on this type of research. This is a negligible sum. On the London traffic survey we are spending £½ million. If we can spend £½ million on the London traffic survey, surely we can spend a little more on research here at home? I would like to believe that, if the traffic survey is extended, a greater effort should be made to bring in home-grown research experts on traffic problems so that they will gain experience and not simply leave the present American firm to do the whole job.
I am concerned with the whole question of co-ordination of research on transport. I know that I must not go on for more than a few more minutes. I know also how easy it would be to produce a formula which would look very good on paper and might even sound convincing in a speech but which would be in no way related to the practical jobs of administration and of government. I am certainly not in favour of another committee of men and women of good will, the main purpose of which would be to act as a buffer between the Minister and the many pressure groups outside.
Nevertheless, these things being said, I wonder whether the present machinery for economic research is adequate and whether we might not perhaps have a

transport research council which would work closely with the general division of the Ministry and bring in experts from outside. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that this will be a job for the National Economic Development Council. The truth is that the National Economic Development Council is not doing the work and has no plans for doing so in the near future. We do not know what its future is, for that matter, and it has not got the facilities or the resources, although perhaps things will change in a year or two. This being so, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the possibility of an economic research council? I am not being dogmatic, but it seems to me a suggestion worth bearing in mind. It would then initiate studies and find and disburse money for them.
By common consent Britain needs a growing economy. By common consent also this depends upon having an efficient transport system. Transport has in the past lent itself to many dogmatic and doctrinaire attitudes from all sides which are not necessarily conducive to getting the efficiency we ultimately require. This being so, I would like to believe that there are plans already in the Ministry for ensuring that we get more research into the economics of transport and that this research is better directed and is in the right places.

11.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) has made an interesting and stimulating speech. He has already shown his interest in this subject by the several Questions which he has asked arising out of the Hall Report. He was good enough to write and tell me some of the other points he wished to raise tonight.
As we have heard, these are all really related to various ways of ensuring that we get the right answer to our transport problems by carrying out adequate research. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in informing me beforehand of his interest and of the points that he wanted to raise. I will do the best I can to give him a comprehensive answer showing the Ministry's current research policy. In doing this I shall try to cover his points, but this is a wide


subject and in the time available I do not wish to get embroiled too much in details when the important thing is to show—I think I can do this to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction—that we are well aware of the need for research and, indeed, use it increasingly as a means of formulating the forward-looking policy which I think characterises not only the Ministry of Transport but indeed the whole Government.
Before dealing with research and the use we make of it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that the request for more research is sometimes only an excuse for delay. A good example of what I mean is the demand, to which the hon. Gentleman himself referred, from some hon. Members opposite that there should be no major reshaping of the railways until a complete survey has been made of the country's whole transport needs.
I do not want, tonight, to embark on a general discussion of transport policy, but this sort of reaction seems to be a classic example of demanding research to procure delay. We do not really need to know more. The facts already available concerning the railways show the necessity of reducing the railway deficit. Indeed, as to the bulk of the railways' proposals for closure, it is impossible to think that further research would, in general, lead to different conclusions about what should be done. I emphasise "in general". In any subject, we may not know the answers to everything, but we often know enough to be getting on with, and in a practical world it is necessary not to make a god of research.
To a certain extent, I agree partly with the hon. Member and partly with the former head of the Department whom he quoted. The best, here as in anything else, is often the enemy of the good, if only because it takes so long to discover what is absolutely right. If I can give the hon. Member a homely example, perhaps he will understand what I mean. A young married couple living with their in-laws may not know exactly the right place to go and live, but they do know that it is right to make a change and find somewhere of their own to live.
In its leading article on 15th July, The Times recognised this in referring

to the difficulty of formulating all that needs to be done about transport in one comprehensive plan. This sort of completely comprehensive plan is really not "on".
I have spent what the hon. Member may regard as too much time on a rather negative approach because there is danger in people becoming research mad. We have to keep moving. We cannot stop the world until we are ready to go forward on all points simultaneously. When it is clear that something should be done now, there is no need to wait for comprehensive research. Therefore, for example, we stepped up the rate of road building without waiting for a report on it. Because I say this, however, perhaps by way of warning, does not mean that I do not recognise that there are many directions where research is helpful. An example of this is the inquiry which we have just initiated into the licensing of road haulage.
What we have to aim at in the Ministry is to keep a balance between action and research. It sometimes even happens—and this, I think, is what the former secretary, whom the hon. Member quoted, was getting at—that only when dealing with a problem in practice can one see where the difficulties lie, what additional information would be helpful and where more research is needed.
In transport, therefore, research is best concentrated in a way that will help us to solve problems of policy and planning that actually exist. It is not a field, like science or medicine, in which pure research is likely to lead to a dramatic breakthrough. The Hall Report, on which the hon. Member was commenting the whole time, recognised this. It began with a statement of the fundamental problems facing the Ministry and it proceeded to discuss possible lines of research. This is the way we work in the Ministry. The first thing is to find the facts.
As an example of what I mean by that, I should like to refer to the problem of transport in cities, which was particularly mentioned in the Hall Report. Here, the difficulty is to get a solution that gives the right balance between the various conflicting interests. There is the desire of individuals, naturally, to travel more or less where and when they


want. There is the desire of trade and commerce to collect and deliver goods at times convenient to themselves. There is the need to avoid waste when investing in transport and there is also the importance of seeing, at the same time, that our cities are places in which to live.
Those are the problems. To answer them, we have to find out such things as the future pattern of personal travel, the strength of people's preferences for different forms of travel, the future needs for the movement of goods, the pattern of transport facilities today and the costs of adding to them in various ways—in fact, all the information that can come from a comprehensive transport survey. But even when we have all the facts from such a survey, we need to have techniques for abstracting from this knowledge what would be the best pattern of transport facilities; how many roads or railways are needed, what is the right "mix" between public and private transport, and so on.
Economic analyses must be applied to the information obtained from surveys to find out what systems will give the right balance between costs to the community and benefits to travellers. There are, therefore, over the whole range of transport, two stages; research that will enable the facts to be got and research that will enable the right lessons to be drawn from them. A good deal of research has been going on in an endeavour to discover the facts. There is the Hall Report, which gives the general outlook for traffic in 1981 and then, for the railways, there is the Beeching Report, which has tried to discover the traffics which the railways should carry and to evolve the methods by which they should compete for that traffic and to plan the necessary reshaping of the railway system. This is an important piece of research and one that has been carried out by a transport operator, which is as it should be because transport operators are just as much concerned with research as are the Government.
From the urban point of view, a lot of research is going on. Soon we will have the Buchanan Report with its wide implications for city life. The hon. Member will be glad to hear that that is the only reference I shall make to the Buchanan Report. As the House

knows, the Ministry of Transport and the London County Council jointly commissioned the London Traffic Survey, which will give detailed information of future traffic needs to enable us to relate these to changes in employment, residential patterns, and so on.
The hon. Member referred to the question of associating British experts in the extension of the work on this survey. They are already part of it, for the survey is being undertaken by American and British consultants working together. The reason for employing Americans is because they have experience of dealing with problems which will not hit us for another generation or so. We think that this use of Americans produces useful cross-fertilisation and, in order to spread knowledge widely, other Government Departments as well as transport operators are being associated with the survey.
The same sort of thing is happening in the provinces; for example the results of the Merseyside Survey should be ready this year and others will be following soon after that. However, I think that it is best for the lead to be taken by the; local authorities because they have responsibilities for general planning, highways and traffic. In this respect, I am glad to be able to say that my own City of Glasgow has taken the initiative in requesting such a comprehensive survey for the Clyde Valley.
Naturally, in all of this the Ministry of Transport has an important part to play, not only in encouraging a start on the surveys but in working closely with local authorities in carrying them through. Parallel with all these special studies, there is a continuing programme of research designed to find out more about long-term trends in transport, which is going on all the time. Two major new inquiries have recently been undertaken. One is a large-scale sample survey of road goods transport and the other is a continuing series of surveys of the ownership and use of private cars.
It is all a problem of getting at the facts. We are being fairly active, but the problem of the other side of the coin appears to be mainly in the mind of the hon. Member; that is, the question of how, once the facts are obtained,


the techniques of analysing them are being improved and how research in this sense is being speeded on.
Here, as the hon. Gentleman realises, the Ministry cannot make all the running itself. Many of the skills required are those of economists. Therefore, for this sort of interpretative work we intend to rely to a great extent on outside sources, such as the universities. Of course, transport research in the universities is still a young subject, but it is developing in two ways. The first is in the growth of traffic engineering from engineering proper into wider questions of the economics of transport, pricing, and so on. Secondly, there is increasing interest in transport as a subject of its own within the overall field of economics.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to improve the demand, and we are trying to step up demand by emphasising to local authorities the value of making greater use of traffic engineers. The development that is going on is very helpful to us, and the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Ministry has been strengthening its links with the universities, and a useful two-way traffic in ideas is developing. Sometimes we describe the problem that needs solution, and sometimes the idea for new projects comes from the research workers themselves.
A sign of the importance we attach to this sort of development is that this year, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, money has been specially voted for research. It is only a token sum, of course, because

we did not know how much is to be spent, but we intend to make use of it. That does not mean that we are setting out to control or finance all research work in transport. It would be a great pity if the universities did not develop some research of their own. What it does mean is that, in collaboration with the universities, we plan to use this Vote to stimulate more research and, where appropriate, to commission specific studies which we hope will help us in making policy decisions. An example of this is that we have just commissioned with British Railways a cost-benefit study of investment in a railway electrification scheme.
That leads me to the question of research into cost-benefit raised by the hon. Gentleman, and the techniques that have to be examined. I have mentioned one example already, but there is also the Victoria line. The Road Research Laboratory has also done a good deal of work on this technique in relation to roads. At the same time, in developing these new techniques, we do not forget the need to develop better ways of measuring the commercial return on investment, and we are engaged in studying this with the nationalised industries now—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock